Skip to main content
8:00 pm
want to locate here. it also means citizens will have the critical thinking skills they need in order to help guide our democracy. we will all prosper that way. that is what we are fighting for. they will write that next great chapter in the american story and we have got to make sure they are -- we are providing that investment. i am proud of every teacher here who has dedicated their lives to make sure those kids get a good start in life. i want to make sure i am helping and that the country is behind you every step of the white. all right? thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. [applause]
8:01 pm
later, some of today's house debate in a bill that will extend on federal workers' pay. >> we have a habit of glossing over presidents. they all have to be treated -- what that means is that you have a smoothing over of the rough edges. there's a a feeling among modern present that they have the right. that will be located in the presidential library. even if they are gone, there are children in some cases and their former allies that live longer than presidents because they are longer. they continue this. they are even more ferocious but
8:02 pm
only because it involves them, but the old man is gone. the problem is what does the government do because it is responsible when you have this kind of president? >> naftali details the challenges he faced. sunday night at 8 p.m. on c- span's "q&a." members of president obama's cabinet were before the senate committee today and outlining their sentiments of what would happen if the automatic spending cuts, the sequestration, went into effect on march one. they discussed homeland security housing, and education. this is three hours. >> that morning, everyone.
8:03 pm
it today we are convening the committee of the appropriations committee. it is the worst hearing in the 113th congress for the appropriations committee. the focus of today's hearing will be on the impact of the sequester and the critical national function that are important to the security, safety, and future of the american people. as i take this gavel, i'm mindful of the -- and acknowledge the previous leadership of the outstanding chair. it is a great honor for me to be part of this committee. we all carry a special place in our hearts today for senator don the whole ionay -- -
8:04 pm
senator. the senator of hawaii. i wanted knowledge the incredible cooperation i have seen. one of the senators was the vice chair. he talked to me in those early days to ask that they remove the hurricane sandy appropriations. i will be forever grateful for his steady hand and wise counsel and direct assistance that he provided me. i want to acknowledge that my ranking members in this committee. it is well-known to many of the the members of the appropriations committee and the senate that senator shelby and i have a long-standing, personal and professional relationship. we have been through the house of representatives together. we sit on the server committee and served together.
8:05 pm
i look forward to working with him as my vice chair and continuing the tradition of bipartisanship that has been characteristic of this committee. my relationship with senator shelby is based on mutual trust, mutual respect, and the desire to move forward. we know that we will disagree on matters of policy, that if we could agree it on matters of progress i get beyond ultimatum's, government lurching from one dramatic event to another and return to regular order, the country will be better governed and the american people will be better served. this appropriations committee i will remind everyone is one of over two congressional committees -- the revenue committee gathers revenue to operate the government of the
8:06 pm
united states. the other is to make wise and prudent expenditures in the interest of the united states. we are constitutionally mandated except finance and appropriations. we were greeted by congress to govern its up. we were created to help govern the nation. this is what brings us to our hearing today. we will focus on the impact of the sequester. i think it is a bad idea. it is bad policy. it is a bad economic policy. it is bad governing policy. i really do not like it. it is working with the leadership to be able to find a way to avoid the sequester in the hopes that a higher power find a way for the nine years that it is mandated. what we hope to accomplish today is to take a look at the impacts if the sequester happens
8:07 pm
for the american people. thank you for everyone coming. we thank you for speaking about defense. it has been well heard and well spoken. we look toward to hearing from you, secretary napolitano. in the u.s. military, military, those who wear the uniform, will be protected in the sequester, and they should. there are others that need to be protected. what is the impact of them? and also the future of the country, the ability to ~ the middle class. this is where secretary donovan, we want to talk to about housing and the economy. what is it that we need to do? you hold the future of america
8:08 pm
in your hands. he went to innovate, but first we have to out educate. to hear about the impacts of sequester for educational reform. -- we want to hear about the impacts of sequester for educational reform. i believe we will run to view with destiny. we must solve this problem. i do not think the american people quite understand the impacts were sequester mandates and $85 billion cut that is equally shared by defense and by domestics. you are a national security secretary napolitano. layoffs and services not delivered to the american people -- i have to cope with my members here on the issue of the fiscal cliff. also, the issues of implementing homeland security.
8:09 pm
to talk about the impact on these agencies. -- we want to talk about the agencies.these indic what about the fbi? what about the people who staff are federal prison? in the area of health and education, i understand for mental -- and where will they go? a nursing home? we are cutting funding. we are here to listen to you. we know the impact that when defense sneezes, the economy could catch an ammonia. guard workers. we want to hear from you. enough about hearing from me. working with the leadership, i
8:10 pm
will fight to fight a balance solution of increased revenue and strategic cuts and look at the inventory spending. there needs to be a balance solution. the burden can not be done by cuts on these agencies alone. make sure the sequester does not happen this year and does not happen over the next nine years. i've been like to turn my vice chairman, senator shelby. then we will go to the panel after that. >> thank you, chairman mikulski. thank you for your kind words. today we will hear from our witnesses on the impacts of the sequester, which is appropriate
8:11 pm
and timely. the cuts are poised to take effect in 15 days. it should be noted that the sequester is something that congress and the president set in motion, knowing full well that this day would come. the sequester would bring spending cuts that are automatic and across the board for discretionary. the formula would determine how many cuts are made and stead of what is based on economic growth, say it, and prosperity. cuts will come without regard to a program's merit. some of the most severe cuts will hit defense programs. we must reduce spending, but it should be done in a deliberate way. the sequester was supposed to be a last resort in the so-called supercommittee failed to agree upon measures. in the end, maybe stan impasse.
8:12 pm
-- they reached an impasse. we have seen the sequester coming, but we have not taken any steps to fix it. congress has only delayed it further. this situation prevents -- present an opportunity. the president has called on congress to act, but he has not put forward a proposal the specific options. also when i hear the president some members say that the solution must include raising taxes further, i question their seriousness in fixing the overall problem. i've seen the lease analysis. we do not have a revenue problem, but a spending problem. revenue is on the path to increase and to return to levels that are in line with our historical average of 18-19% of gdp.
8:13 pm
in contrast, government spending remains high during the next 10 years and is expected to grow beyond its 40 year average. this will occur even with discretion all spending -- discretion alal spending caps. cbo estimates that discretionary spending will fall like more than 3%. that is below the historical average. the real driver of our that is not discretion alal spending, bt entitlement spending. cbo report this combination of an aging population, rising healthcare costs, and health insurance subsidies will drive up the costs of programs shou. this will be to a death spiral. the issue is compounded by the costs of servicing our debt.
8:14 pm
it will rise in 2012 to over $850 billion rejected in 2023. by then, interest will be 6% of our discretionary budget. this growing debt poses an increased risk of precipitating a fiscal crisis the likes of which we have never seen. the warning signs that we are moving forward, the fiscal meltdown has been in place for a long time. congress has repeatedly failed. it has been years since congress has even had a regular budget process with appropriations measures upon -- that were agreed upon. i believe the american public deserves a transparent and accountable budget process at the stores fiscal order.
8:15 pm
sequestration should not be part of the process. it is certainly no long-term solution to our spending problem. it should be a cautionary tale for congress. the sequester we face is the tip of the iceberg compared to austerity measures that will be necessary in the future if congress does not act soon for fiscal reform. i believe fiscal on we had to reform must include both tax reform and spending cuts. one without the other is only a partial solution. in the state of the union address, the president reiterated what appears to be -- that number sounds died during, -- and that number sounds -- it only scratches the surface. i am concerned that the debate
8:16 pm
surrounding the sequester will become a diversion from the real problem facing us. the time for partial and temporary solutions is well past. what we need is a collective acknowledgment of the problem and they comprehensive, joint effort to reach a long-term resolution. anything short of that will place the american economy on an irreversible, downward path. we will hear about the past consequences of the impending cuts. i do not doubt that he will be painful to bear. -- they will be painful to bear. i'm open to discussion. i believe it is important to emphasize that the sequester of whatever temporary solution we have made is just a precursor to the main event. thank you. >> thank you, senator shelby.
8:17 pm
we will go to the panel. we would have begin with omb and wrap up with national security. in the interest of time and efficacy, we will have one panel and be able to ask questions where we can get cross communication going. we will start with you and then secretary donovan and secretary napolitano. we will go to questions and alternating on both sides of the aisle. right off with senator shelby and myself eri. you are representing omb. their obligations with the presidential responsibility. go ahead and give us the details
8:18 pm
of omb. i will not introduce everyone. we will keep it going. >> thank you. members of the committee, good morning. i'm here to discuss the automatic spending reductions known as sequestration. it is scheduled to occur at march 1, as well as the impacts of these reductions and the actions the administration is taking to prepare to implement sequestration should it be necessary. i want to start by reiterating a point. as sequestration is bad policy. administration believes that congress should pass a balanced ,, bipartisan deficit reduction to avoid it. if allowed to occur, sequestration would have significant and disruptive consequences for domestic investment, national security, and poor government services. the cuts required a harm middle- class families, seniors, and the most vulnerable. the president believes these
8:19 pm
indiscriminate across-the-board cuts are not ours possible way to address our goals of balance deficit reduction. we have made significant progress in this regard. we have an active deficit reductions over the past two beers. the vast majority of this progress has come in the form of spending cuts. roughly three dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar in additional revenue. the president believes we need to have a balanced approach that includes a spending cuts, but also includes commonsense tax reform that can raise additional revenue. as part of the american -- act from tentacle, the date that the president would have to issue this a question should date was delayed from january 2 to march 1, 2013. with $24 billion in deficit reduction split evenly, this approach set an important
8:20 pm
precedent of avoiding sequestration and having a balance deficit reduction that combines additional revenue and spending cuts. should congress failed to act in the next two weeks, a sequestration of approximately $85 billion will be ordered for the remainder at the school year 2013. it will be split evenly between defense and nondefense programs. this will lead to a number of deeply troubling consequences and critical government programs we depend on. it would mean fewer teachers to educate the children. less funding for schools to help disadvantage kids with disabilities. less research into life reckoning diseases. it would cut nutrition assistance for vulnerable tabulations and reduce funding for center health programs. it would keep federal agencies from conducting expansions -- inspections necessary to keep our food and water safe and clean. it would make our home less
8:21 pm
secure. we need to keep crime out of our streets and neighborhoods. it would make us less safe or .broad -- safe or abroad shoul there is no amount of planning to avoid these damaging impacts. the federal government takes reasonable steps to avoid sequestration in the most responsible way possible. there'll agencies and omb have been engaged in ongoing activities for months to figure out how to operate under sequestration. our primary sponsor that he do execute our core areas on behalf of the american people. -- our primary sponsor abilities that we execute our core areas on behalf of the american people. let me reiterate -- no amount of planning or perforation on our part, no matter how thorough
8:22 pm
or careful, can mitigate the significant and harmful impact sequestration would have. it is not a responsible, long- term resolution. we need a balanced approach of spending reductions and revenues. it needs to build upon the significant reduction we have worked to achieve, strengthens the middle class, protects investments article, -- that are critical. thank you. i look over to your questions. >> members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity. great to see you again. with your support, we would be able to help states, districts, and communities that are providing benefits to those who are the most honorable. i appreciate this opportunity to testify about this topic.
8:23 pm
i hope that committee members will keep the most vulnerable students in the forefront of their minds. they are the ones who will be hurt most if congress chooses to let sequestration happen. i want to be clear that we have the opportunity at all levels of government to make spending for education more productive and efficient. distinct educational product to video requires smart and targeted changes to programs and not indiscriminate budget cuts. sequestration would force us to court -- cut the crucial services and effect millions of lives of students. there is no probable plan b. here is who would get hurt -- the biggest cuts would take effect next school year that 2013-2014 school year. we need hiring decisions in the spring -- we make hiring decisions in the spring.
8:24 pm
the plan is to make do with less. meaning larger class sizes and fewer courses and less tutoring and higher unemployment. this undermines the very stability and predicted really every schools and works hard to achieve. it hurts families, children, and school staff. the vast majority of school districts will not be able to make up with these cuts at the local level. when they had to, they will hurt the most vulnerable students the worst. federal education resources generally are targeted to those children with the greatest need. title 1 grams serve almost 23 million students at high poverty schools. special education grants help about 6.5 million special-needs students. sequestration would cut title 1 by $725 million.
8:25 pm
it could affect 1.2 million disadvantage students. it would affect 10,000 teachers and support staff. special education, we could be forced to cut millions of dollars. it requires states and districts to cover the cost of approximately 72,000 teachers, aides, and other staffs. early childhood education, we would see cuts as well. some 70,000 students in head start could be kicked out. we're trying to do more not to the opposite. it is foolish and morally indefensible. higher education, the impact is destructive. we would have to cut back collection of student debt, it increased him into the treasury, and fell behind and servicing millions of student loans.
8:26 pm
we would also cut 70,000 students from grants and work- study programs that help them financial costs of college. clearly that is not the path we want to go down to regain our place as the nation that leads the world in college completion. those cuts do not take cut -- affect until then next will, others will hit right away. the affect schools and programs that draw direct funding from us, the government. who would be hurt -- families of military service members, disabled individuals, and people living on native american lands. the county schools in new mexico, which 7000 students living on indian land, sequestration would cut more than one third of that district's budget. these are young people we need to invest more in and not less. we have warned our own employees that there would be possible
8:27 pm
furloughs. that is across the board cuts that we would be forced to make. we believe -- education is not just another line item budget. education is fundamentally an investment. it is an investment in the future of our children, communities, and our country. high-quality education is the only way to build a strong and vibrant middle class and to foster upward economic and social mobility. an italian most americans do not meet the minimum qualifications to list in the military, it is also an investment in the national security. budgets are not just numbers. whether we choose to invest in children and education is a crystal clear statement about our values. children listen to what we say,
8:28 pm
but it is the action not the words that tell them whether we care. and the state of the union address, these are sudden, hard, and arbitrary cuts that would devastate priorities for education and medical research. it would slow down our recovery. it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. internationally, we are striving to get better faster. the one to help our children to compete in a global economy. our do we want our country to just -- drift in the opposite direction? -- or do we want our country to drift in the opposite direction? i would echo the president and ask you to take your time to develop a budget that would permanently replace the sequestration. i testified last summer.
8:29 pm
the president and everyone on his team remained ready to work with all of you on a long-term plan to cut the deficit while investing in future programs that will strengthen our emmys, economy, and global leadership. -- our economy and global leadership. >> chairwoman mikulski, vice chairman shelby, and members of the committee, i want to recognize senator murray and senator collins further great partnership together and with us in making difficult and important decisions for the country. thank you. their secret opportunity to testify today regarding impacts of sequestration on housing and urban development programs. should it go into effect, the cuts would be deeply that it would affect middle-class and the income in the vigils. it would cost at a time when it
8:30 pm
is helping to lead our economic recovery. more specifically sequestration would meet about 125,000 individuals and emily's, more than half of whom are disabled or elderly. they would have the risk of homelessness. sequestration would result in over 100,000 homeless and formerly homeless people. the majority of them are families, and disabled adults, or veterans being removed from their programs and putting them at the substantial risk of returning to the streets. cuts to the housing opportunities would result in 7000 receiving housing assistance and threaten the population of homeless america. that would result in more than 3000 of the most vulnerable
8:31 pm
children not being protected from led poisoning or other hazards in their home. cuts to -- that would mean fewer housing protection or other counseling. this means fewer families making responsible and informed choices and greater risk throughout the housing market. sequestration would have a broader and damaging a pack -- affect. sequestration cuts $212 million from our programs, cain utes lose nearly half billion dollars of additional funding from private and other sources because they can no longer leverage those critical federal dollars. as to public housing budgets would mean more deferred maintenance and capital repairs on top of an existing capital backlog of over $25.6 billion nationwide. endangering the future of these departments and the
8:32 pm
neighborhoods. in 2012, they retained almost 22 thousand permanent jobs in more than 32.5 million people benefited from the community grant. sequestration would jeopardize that. across all of our programs, sequestration would result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs at a time when continued recovery depends on a stable job market, especially in our hard, hit construction company. it has been central to the housing market, but our ability to perform critical activities to support recovery would be hammered by sequestration as a result of furloughs that would be required for agency staffs. the frustration would jeopardize ability processor loans when f ha or present a substantial portion of home loan originations of homebuyers
8:33 pm
across across the country, as well as 24% of all multifamily construction. that would destabilize the market and slow economic recovery. sequestration threatens hurricane sandy recovery efforts. 5% cut amounts to $3 billion for the sandia supplemental that was passed by congress. from housing, transportation, and other areas. an example, the funding that would be cut would help make necessary repairs for more than 10,000 homes and businesses in the region. whether it is a man-made disaster of the natural disaster of hurricane sandy, hud has been central to recovery efforts. we know that broad-based economic growth requires a balance approach to deficit reduction is everyone doing their fair share. not an approach that harms the
8:34 pm
middle class or the poor and comes at the expense of our economy. sequestration is a lunch and indiscriminate in mr. a instrum. indiscriminateand instrument. we cannot risk our economic recovery. opposing the serious damage that the sequester would make. thank you for allowing me to testify. i'm eager to work with your committee in any way i can to help avoid sequestration. thank you. >> thank you. members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impacts of sequestration on the department of homeland security. dhs day mission that touches almost every aspect of our economy. we secure the aviation sector and screens 2 million american
8:35 pm
travelers every day. we protect the borders and ports of entry while facilitating trade and travel. last year, our officers assessed more than three hundred 50 million people and facilitated nearly $2.3 trillion in trade. we enforce the immigration laws. we partner with the private sector to protect radical infrastructure. we work -- to protect our critical infrastructure. we support recovery. put simply, the budget cuts would be destructive to our nation's security and to our economy. it would negatively affect the mission readiness and capability of the men and women on the front lines. it would undermine the significant progress dhs is made over the past few years.
8:36 pm
perhaps most critically, it would have a serious consequence to the flow of trade and travel at our nation's port of in transit -- and ports of entry. average wait times to clear customs will increase by 50%. at our busiest airports like newark and jfk, lax, chicago o'hare, people wait times it can reach over two hours to grow to four hours or more. that would cause thousands of mr. passenger -- missed flight connections. it would increase domestic passenger wait time by more than one hour. at the southwest florida -- border, we would have to close these ports during core hours.
8:37 pm
at the seaports, delays were it cain or examinations -- delays for container contaminations would be increased to over five days. mid-size smaller ports would have less hours of operations. cruise terminals, processing time could increase up to six hours. it could cause passengers to miss flights are delayed trips and increase costs. trade and travel are essential to our economy. according to the u.s. travel association, one new american job is created for every 33 travelers arriving from overseas. according to the international trade administration, dhs -- could result in millions of dollars of economic loss.
8:38 pm
cpb would have to furlough all of its employees and eliminate hiring positions. decreasing the number work hours are equivalent to more than 5000 border patrol agent. the coast guard would have to reduce its presence in the arctic i nearly one third. surface operations by more than 25%, it would affect management of the waterways and fisheries and drug interdiction and migrant interdiction and port security. under sequestration, ice -- we would not be able to maintain 34,000 detention beds mandated by congress. it would reduce our investigative activities into things like human smuggling and commercial trade fraud. sequestration reductions would require us to scale that the
8:39 pm
development of critical capabilities for the defense of federal cybersecurity networks. the core structure would remain vulnerable. it would have impacts on our nation's disaster for. ms., response, and recovery efforts. -- the nation's disaster response and recovery efforts. we are still recovering from hurricane sandy and the tourney does in other major disasters across -- and tornadoes and other major disasters across the country. we would have layoffs of state and local emergency personnel across the country. threats of terrorism and the need to respond to and recover from natural disasters will not diminish because of budget cuts. even in this current fiscal climate, we do not have the luxury of making significant reductions to our capabilities without wasting the nation at
8:40 pm
risk. -- without placing the nation at risk. no amount of panic -- as we approach march, i urge congress to act to prevent sequestration and ensure the safety, security, and resiliency of the nation. >> dr. carter? >> thank you. is that on? ok. thank you. i thank you both and this entire committee for having the securing. i will tell you why. we have been very concerned about what we have called the devastating effect's of sequester on our nation's
8:41 pm
defense and everything we do. we have been talking about this for 16 months now. now the wolf is at the door. i would like to describe some of the specific consequences of sequester for national security. the big -- we have another contingency that is affecting us. it is a continuing resolution and prospect that it would enforce through the end of the year. it has near-term effects on the department. there are two things that come together. worst, sequester. it is scheduled to -- first sequester. it is scheduled for march 1. as you all know they do it from
8:42 pm
a management standpoint, item by item. the continuing resolution has presented a problem for us. you have enough money in the continuing resolution, but the problem is that it is in the wrong account. the operations and maintenance part is very much short. that creates problems. i will describe that. these two things come together to create what we have been calling "a crisi in readinenessn the near-term. -- "a crisis in the near-term." the sequester is triggered for fy-12013. not be able to carry out the new defense strategy that we crafted under president obama's leadership only one year ago.
8:43 pm
the -- it is not that we do not understand that the department of defense needs to make a contribution to the nation's fiscal situation resolution. that is why we have accommodated for hundred $87 billion in cuts. -- 487 billion dollars in cuts. that was on top of several hundred billions of dollars worth of cuts that secretary gates it began, eliminating unneeded and him are -- began, eliminating unneeded programs. i also understand that the taxpayer deserves every defense dollar that we do get from you.
8:44 pm
we will continue to strive to get better buying power for the defense dollar system. but both a strategic approach to defense spending and efficient use of the taxpayer dollar or undermined i sequestration. -- by sequestration. it is not a result of an economic session or emergency. it is not because discretionary spending cuts is the answer to the fiscal challenges. do the math. it does not in reaction to a more peaceful world. it is not due to a breakthrough in military technology or strategic insight. it is not because paths in entitlement has been explored and exhausted. it is not because sequestration was a plan ever plan to be implemented. this is the collateral damage of political gridlock. for the troops, the consequences are very real and very personal.
8:45 pm
the president has indicated his intentions to spare military compensation from sequestration. that is a very good decision. it is one that we intend to carry out. make no mistake -- the troops will fill this directly. i will give you the principal example. there are many. we will need to sharply curtail training in all the services. for example, a brigade combat team that has returned from afghanistan that is used to being tiptop ready. that is what matters to this profession. the army reports two thirds of its brigade combat teams will be at reduced readiness by year 's end. to do the same with the air force and so forcorth.
8:46 pm
it will have a big effect for people in uniform. also civilians, and people think dod civilians are those who wake up in washington suburbs i go to an office building. they are not. -- washington suburbs and go to an office building. they are not. they maintain ships. many of them do not even live in the washington area during the 44% of them are veterans. -- area. 44% of them are veterans. we would have to furlough many of them. to do that for up to 22 days, i promised that when that happens , i would give them a fifth of
8:47 pm
my paycheck to the treasury for those last seven months it we have to furlough people. i cannot be furloughed because i'm an appointed -- a senate confirmed employee, but i would give back a fifth of my salary. in addition, the effects would be devastating. the quality of our defense industry is second only to the quality of our people in uniform, which meets our military the greatest in the world. ecologically migrant and financially successful defense industry is in the national -- a technologically vibrant and financially successful defense industry is in the national interest.
8:48 pm
companies might be less willing to make investments anin defense portfolios. subcontractors, many of them lacked the capital structure to withstand this kind of turbulence. 50-70 cents of every dollar that we contract goes not to the .rime contractor many of these are small businesses. above all, sequester would cause a spike in inefficiencies. the consequences are direct and devastating. i would like to close with an appeal to dietrich are
8:49 pm
sequestration -- de-trigger sequestration. i would like to add that in the long run, national security rest on a strong economy. it rest on a strong industrial and engineering base. it rest on having science, technology, engineering, and math talents here in america. indirectly, we depend upon them as well. understanding the effects of sequestration for us in managing them in the department of defense, i understand the comparable problems that are rising for my colleagues around the table. the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the defense affairs but having adverse effects. the clot is sequestration needs to be dispelled -- cloud of
8:50 pm
sequestration needs to be dispelled and not just moved into the horizon. they need to know that we will keep our commitments to them. their employees need to know we will have the resources to per occur the world-class -- >> secretary carter -- >> our friends and enemies are watching us menem chairwoman. they need to know we have the political will to forestall sequestration. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for the compelling and riveting testimony for the consequences of this policy. as you can see, we have a great turn of members. we also had to return by 1 p.m.
8:51 pm
we will go with the five minute rule which i will impose on myself and the other members. we will ask the panelists to give crisp answers so we can get in as much content as we can. we need to have a target on this. there is a democratic caucus. i know the other party is pondering it. we will get right on with it. you will be recognized on order of arrival. i look forward to these questions duri. secretary duncan. i heard secretary condoleezza rice, an iconic figure in american society, state not only on national security, but she has said repeatedly that education is a civil rights issue of this generation.
8:52 pm
education reforms under president bush the elder, president w. bush, the impact of the sequester on our bipartisan commitments for educational reform -- we need to get our kids ready for the future. will this divalent -- derail it? >> it would have devastating impacts. we know that we can do better. it makes the untenable. condoleezza rice and others, if you're trying to level the playing field, if you want to help poor children enter the middle class, you need to give them high-quality education. this is a civil rights issue of our generation. it is an economic imperative. it is also an issue of economic security. that is a big deal.
8:53 pm
the impact would be -- one piece of this is title $1. it would help children with the greatest need and break the cycles of poverty and social till years. -- failures. if we fail to educate these children, what will they do? what is the option? children with disabilities have tremendous need. it would have a huge impact there as well. that is unacceptable to me. >> thank you. we also understand that housing is one of the sectors that can lead us out of the recession. the economy is poised for recovery, but it is vulnerable. you are the housing guy. tell me what you think the impact the sequester will be on housing.
8:54 pm
you start -- jobs, the supply chain from the lumberyard all the way up to pick and -- big construction projects. >> you put your finger on it. housing has become one of the leading factors that is driving our recovery. because of the critical role that congress created for fha, we are central to that recovery . almost half of first-time loan tors usean fh an fha buy the house. one of the factors of the early recovery, and that can structure and industry come has been multifamily construction. it has jumped dramatically. we drive about 20% of all that
8:55 pm
multifamily construction. even just to take a small number of employees out of our by artist and -- out of our furlough or a lack of hiring, a hiring freeze, we believe that this year alone there would be $3 billion in financing for a particular multifamily construction that would not happen. there would be ripple effects of the jobs. that is one small example. multiply that. >> is this the ripple effect in the -- >> the brick layer or the plu mber or the carpenter on the front line to the window manufacturer --all of the ripple effects to our system would be halted. >> secretary carter you outlined compellingly what the sequester would be.
8:56 pm
there's a question floating around about minimizing the impacts on defense. there are those that would like to give you unlimited authority to devise the defense budget without any recourse of coming to congress to soften the blow. what is your position? what is the administrative position that the animist ration's position -- what is the administration's position? do you need something more definite? >> that would take legislation. i hope there is some in the area that would dispel this problem once and for all. the other thing i will say is that at this point in the fiscal
8:57 pm
year with cuts of this magnitude, we need to go where the money is. we do not have a lot of choice. >> you want unlimited authority ? >> we would like some program authority. it would help us. >> that is not -- a senator has a proposal. we acknowledge that it will be out there in debating. i want you and us to have a real solution of the sequester. if you have a proposal, go through cr are something. right now, what you're talking that is just giving defense so you all can decide how to do it at the expense of everyone else. >> at this point in the fiscal
8:58 pm
year, it does not help us that much. if the price of that is just kicking the can down the road living under this uncertainty, that is not attract is for -- attractive for me. >> my time is up. senator shelby. after senator shelby, we go do harkin's. -- to harkins. >> thank you. we need to return to regular order in the appropriations process. the chairwoman has talked about it. i have talked about it. you have alluded to it. to provide certainty, which we need, do all of you support a return to order on budget and
8:59 pm
appropriations measures? that is what i thought. that is right. in the interest of reestablishing regular order and in the likely event that the sequester moves forward, what all of you consider transmitting budget amendments for fiscal year 2013 that would give you the flexibility to realize agency funding under new constraints? assuming the sequester was into effect. >> thank you, senator. i will get the responses started. the administration would oppose a solution that kept the sequester in place and try to reconstruct it in such a way that would try to dull some of the pain. we cannot cut $85 billion out of
9:00 pm
our budget over the next seven months without creating significant problems and consequences across both defense and nondefense. when the sequester was to put in place, there was not only agreement that it should a compromise and a solution to balanced deficit-reduction. everyone agreed it would be harmful. one of the ways it would be harmful to this id was going to carry on the back of certain populations this burden of deficit reduction, the middle- class, the vulnerable. the notion that we can live within an $85 billion cut moving money around is not change the fact that we would still be in a world where who was bearing the burden would be the middle class, the ball will -- and the
9:01 pm
vulnerable. we will see harmful consequences without. >> that is a great summary but the idea of flexibility sounds nice but the choice is devastatingdiso we save title -- the choice is devastating. do we save title 1, do more for ell? none of these are good tresses. we have to invest. the idea that we can kick the can down the road leads to a situation that -- where thousands would be hurt. kopp >> we are halfway through the year. take one example of a hudd crowberry helping homeless
9:02 pm
veteran get off the street. -- one example of a hudd program where we hpelp -- help a homeless veteran and get off the street. to say we will cut from the program means you do not have flexibility. you have to cut off existing funding for existing units to be able to achieve these cuts in a short time. no flexibility would allow us with this kind of deep cuts to be able to do this in a way that would mitigate the great damage. >> flexibility really is inflexible. there are only so many places we can get that kind of money. but thereob's choice is no way we would get through sequestration without
9:03 pm
serious cuts at airports, seaports and land ports and the consequences that occur from that. >> my time is running away. the president in his state of the union address laid out several new policies that would expand the role of the federal government. he also said nothing he proposed should increase our deficit by a single dime. that is troubling. would any of the new policies require an increase in discretionary spending? will congress be required to raise the capital discretionary spending? if the caps are not reyes, with agencies -- if the caps are not raised, would agencies face - >> it is premature to me to talk
9:04 pm
about the president's budget. budget willt's build on the $2.50 trillion in deficit reduction that has been achieved to date. it will build on a framework, times but it. -- framework on last year's budget. clear direction that the discretionary cas put in place -- caps put in place are in place. there are top choices that need to be made. the president is willing to make tough courses on domestic priorities. those are embedded into the
9:05 pm
discretionary caps and budget control act. it does not mean we cannot still make critical investments in education, energy, while also balancing budgets committee responsible spending cuts. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem. when they talk about it, like there is an assumption that somehow we are a nation broke and cannot afford these things any longer. we are too broke to invest in education and housing. we are the richest nation in the history of the world. we are now the richest nation in the world. we have the highest per-capita
9:06 pm
income of any major nation. if we are so rich, what are we so broke? is it a spending problem? no. it is because we have a misallocation of capital. and the wealth. all of this wealth that has been built up by hard working americans has been accumulating into fewer hands. then we have a tax code that is skewed toward the wealthy. a tax cut whittled with -- a tax code riddled with loopholes. that allows the wealthy had to fund manager to pay less rate of taxes that a nurse, for example. it is very interesting that all this talk we have about sequester talks about the programs that hit the hardest on the homeless and the helpless,
9:07 pm
the disabled. and yes, also the middle class. what are we talking about a sequester that when the curtain falls, it also falls on all these tax loopholes. let those and on the same day on which we are going to cut back the spending that allows us to educate our kids with disabilities. we are not talking about that. i take exception to those that say we have a spending problem. misallocation of capital. in the 1990's when we had a balanced budget and a growing economy, our revenues were about 20% of our gdp. now is 16%. -- now it is 16% of our gdp.
9:08 pm
that equals more of a burden on families with kids with it -- kids with disabilities. people are homeless, trying to find a place to live. shelter for our veterans. and the middle class people that work on the jobs that protect our country. too. on them, on the middle class. we have to start thinking about this in different terms. we cannot just focus all the time on cutting our obligations as government to build a more fair and just society. i still believe that the moral test of is how it treats those in the twilight of life and the dawn of life and those in the
9:09 pm
shadows of life. our homeless, our needy, disabled. that is a test of government. i do not think we are meeting that test right now. we are backing off of that. count me as one of those, we have to do all those things but we cannot lose sight of the fact that this federal government we represent has to be involved. and making this a more fair and just society. i know that is an overview and i have taken all my time on that comment but as we move ahead and i hear voices saying no, we have to exempt defense from the discretionary cuts, if defense is this -- is exempted, the homeless should be ex
9:10 pm
empted. we have to get back to a better, rational system. and back to our obligations. i did not ask a question but i want to make it clear that i feel very strongly that it is not just appropriations causing this problem. it is a lack of the revenue we should be taking into meet our obligations as a country. >> thank you very much. yearlong standing reputation for passion -- your long standing reputation for passion is well known and appreciated. senator collins. >> take you very much, madam
9:11 pm
chairman. it is difficult to follow the eloquence of my colleague from iowa. however, i believe we do have a spending problem and the $16.40 trillion debt is ample evidence of that. i said that as one who supported increasing taxes on our highest earners. there is plenty of blame to go around for the crisis we find ourselves in. but there can be no doubt that these indiscriminate cuts represent a failure to set priorities. we cannot allow sequestration to go into effect. if we do so, we might as well pack up and go home.
9:12 pm
if we are just going to have the across-the-board cuts, what is the point of our being here? i hope we can work together to come up with alternatives. secretary carter, i want follow up on a point you made. the ramifications of sequestration are extreme but in my judgment for the department of defense, a yearlong continuing resolution also would inflict tremendous damage and the department. congress has authorized the navy to procure 10 destroyers during the next five years as part of last year's defense authorization act. the navy already has the bids for these ships and is ready to sign but they cannot find these contracts without an appropriations bill.
9:13 pm
we with -- we risk : always significant savings as well as jeopardize and the stability of the ship building and the joe bass be held for so long and hard to preserve if we do not complete work on fy13 appropriations bill. dr. carr ter, do you believe it is essential we not only deal with sequester but have the defense appropriations bill for this year? >> it is. there are both very much destructive. i referred earlier to the fact that in the cr, we have
9:14 pm
inadequate maintenance and operations dollars. it hits us so fast and hard. but we also need the authority to embark on new starts. the way ship building is organized, every new ship is a new start. we are in a position where we are five months into the fiscal year and we have the authority to build the ships we built last year and none to build the ones we plan to build this year. that is crazy. that has nothing to do with sequestered. just don't sequestration and i know i have had this same conversation with secretary of paul lozano -- with secretary napolitano as well. secretary duncan, i have met with educators from maine who tell me my state alone would face up to $11 million in cuts
9:15 pm
in education funding. that could reduce funding for critical programs such as title 1, special education, what does the department of education intend to do to help schools that are hardest hit by sequestration if this goes into effect? could be shifted the focus of some of your competitive grant programs to help in building in education spending? >> the money we spent represented less than 1% of spending on k-12. it is a little more than half a percent. to think we can ship a small number of dollars to fill a
9:16 pm
whole does not make sense. the numbers do not work. the damage would be irreparable. there is little i can do to cushion the blow. that is why it is so important your leadership to the right thing here. i wish i had a magic want to wait. i simply do not have that. >> thank you. a comment course secretary carter. he made an important point about the federal civilian work force. too often is thought of as white collar employees working in satellite and. senator shaheen and i know about welders, engineers going to work at a pier. these are the firefighters to put out a very dangerous fire on a nuclear submarine. we need to keep that in mind as well.
9:17 pm
>> senator murray. >> thank you very much, madam chairwoman. i appreciate the opportunity to hear from a great panel to help us understand the impact of sequestration, should it go into effect. it is important to remember sequestration was never written into the bill to be implemented. if it had, it would have been more thoughtful. it was put to put -- put to come together and get a balanced approach on how we deal with our national budget. we are two weeks away from involvement in policy that not only should not be implemented but was never written to be implemented. i have a working with others on an approach to do that.
9:18 pm
i urge our colleagues to think about how we can do that moving forward. i have a letter for the record. i have over 3000 organizations in this country from human rights campaign to lokke agencies urging us to do that. i submit it for the record. thank you for that. secretary donovan, in your testimony, you talked about the consequences of sequestration cut suit hud programs, over to let a thousand families being at risk of losing their housing. those cuts move past the implications you talked about. cuts in military and domestic spending will result in significant job losses across our country. middle-class families will find themselves threatened because they have lost their jobs, and a fragile time in our housing market. could you talk about how the massive job layoffs that would occur if sequestration was
9:19 pm
implemented would affect the housing market? >> colorado one of the things that is a well important is that for every dollar we put into housing -- one of the things that is cause important is that for every dollar we put into housing, we see $5 and multiplied the impact. if you go in reverse, he multiplied the impact of these cuts across all the private and investment that comes in to housing. when you look at, whether it is our direct housing programs opportunity developments, for every one of the thousands of jobs he would lose through the direct spending half, the rigell effect with factory workers and real estate agents, lenders, what you see is 5019 times -- is 5-10 times the
9:20 pm
number of job cuts that happen. can you build on that a loss of confidence. housing has been driving our economic recovery. just to cut that off at the time, you will see less consumer spending. families will not go to restaurants at the equity in their home is dropping. prices could turn back around. the ripple effects are enormous because of how central housing is to our economy. >> sequestration would have a direct impact on the housing program and the job market and the confidence factor. secretary duncan, an education as a top priority of mind. sequestration will have a huge impact. i heard from a school district in my state.
9:21 pm
they have a free and reduced price break for lunch. they told me it would impact a $1.6 million budget cut. can you tell me how you would see the general impact of these districts having to cope with sequestration? " six are making the decisions about hiring teachers. -- both districts are making decisions about hiring teachers. >> behalf to look at the past couple of years. to the recovery act -- we have to look at the past couple of years. we have class sizes that are much higher than we would like unless children engaged in after-school and summer programs.
9:22 pm
we are at a tough economic time. for many educators, this is the toughest financial situation they have been in in 30, 40 years. to move additional resources would exacerbate a really tough situation. other countries are not doing this. south korea is investing more and that is where the competition is. every good superintendent is trying to do their budget planning now for next year. they are trying to hire staff and figure out your after-school and summer school programming now. when you have a lack of stability, we do not know what is going on, you have to plan for the worst. to you do not raise -- cd not schedule this summer stuff and you raise your class size -- so you do not schedule summer stuff
9:23 pm
and you raise your class size. >> i appreciate that. i want to remind all of us, increasing class size is not just a phrase. i talked to a middle school teacher a few weeks ago after newtown who told me she now has so many kids in her classes, she has no ability to know each one of those kids anymore. we are counting on our educators to know their kids because of the impact of not knowing them. this is a real consequence to our country's reques. >> the president talked about that extensively, the best long- term investment we can make. i talked earlier in my testimony, 70,000 children
9:24 pm
having less access to pre-k. >> thank you. >> we now will go to ranking member on the homeland security subcommittee followed by tom udall and senator mikulski as senator feinstein. we are moving. this is a content rich hearing. >> madam chairman, it is a pleasure to be moving along with you in the chair and all of us
9:25 pm
adhering to the five minute rule. the point i want to make is you have all made the case for having to deal with shrinking resources. i did not support the sequester either. i agree it is not the best way to deal with it. these are issues we should be dealing and working together to the process, separating the essentials on the like to do but we cannot afford it right now from the maybe we should not be doing it at all. every agency head and secretary, i have asked the same question. we have to deal with the reality that our mandatory spending is running away with our budget. the discretionary portion of defense and non-defense discretionary is shrinking. not necessarily because that is the way it should be but because
9:26 pm
the part of the pride that we have no control over in terms of growth is simply continuing to eat up more and more of our annual budget. you can only tax so much before that is not successful. we just went through a fiscal issue here with the cliff. i also supported that. should we not all be dealing with the reality of what we are facing? lokke when wwii ended, -- when wwii ended, soldiers came home, we discussed -- and we recovered from a depression and everybody started having babies. first we needed nursery's, then diapers, norris amounts -- enormous amounts.
9:27 pm
that whole burge has moved through our economy and now it is retirement. 10,000 a day of those baby boomers are retiring. we have mandatory programs at the place that provide -- mandatory programs in place that provide things none of us is try to undo. hereuld we not all be working to try to find a way to address this ever increasing mandatory spending so we have funds available for defense and essential non defense functions? the sequester is a one-year fix that we are trying to do now. shouldn't we be doing the long term fix? are you pleading with the white
9:28 pm
house, with us? are we working together to address what everybody should have been addressing decades ago? we have all seen this coming. this modern merkel -- this modern miracle of medicine has increased life expectancy which used to be not higher than 70. now pick are living to be 80, 85, 90 and 95. once you reach 70, it was in your living on house money when you look at the history of civilization. we have known as baby boom crunch is coming cfor the last 35 years. we have done one thing to adjust mandatory spending -- the 1984 social security fix. which brought us about 40 years of solvency for social security
9:29 pm
by raising the retirement age. we talk about this all the time. here we are pleading with today's -- with doomsday scenarios when regardless of what happens, are you for education, better housing, are we strengthening our national defense, according the border? all the things you're discussing here, you have to get money from a shrinking piece of the pie. so i guess my question is when are we going to step up and press our colleagues to address this problem? so it is not just a matter of we spend too much, we need to spend more. it is a budget problem we have to deal with on a long-term basis.
9:30 pm
fed ease the plight time. -- i have used up all my time. >> the president on multiple occasions has put forward a plan that would create $4 trillion in debt is a reduction over 10 years. that is something both members of parties and experts have pointed to as important benchmark two lay critical foundation for longer-term deficit reduction many years into the future. part of that plan involves sensible reforms to mandatory programs and entitlements. so there is in the president's proposal specific areas that are making those types of sensible reforms. they embody the spending cuts that are and then to the budget control act. then there is tax reform as well. i wanted to make sure i got on the record that in the president's plan, there are
9:31 pm
sensible entitlement reforms. >> the has been that in present plans -- that in presidents plans. we haven't done it. and i think time is up and we need to do it. >> center tom udall 3 >> thank you, madam chair. -- >> senator tom udall. >> thank you, madam chair. what a great pleasure is to participate in my first senate appropriations committee hearing. i wish it was under more pleasant circumstances. i would like to make two points. sequestration president's damaging cuts for new mexico's national labs, military facilities and border security. if implemented, those cuts will
9:32 pm
be very damaging to our national security. sequestration will also be very damaging to some of new mexico's most vulnerable -- children in need of a quality education, rural communities struggling with housing and homeless veterans seeking emergency shelter. mr. werfelm, new mexico's national security laboratories work to support our stockpile mission. i believe this sequester across the board cuts will hamper the important stop -- mcorp to work across the country there is zero tolerance for mistakes when dealing with nuclear weapons. are you afraid sequestered
9:33 pm
present a risk and is dad concerned about its impact as a result? ? >> i think nnsa does fall within the defense category and therefore faces roughly and 8% cut which will be applied evenly across all nnsa labs and plants. it is my understanding that critical milestones will be delayed for that lab as a result of the sequestered refer los alamas, we are looking at hiring freezes and furlough days for certain employees. there is significant concern. your question, i think it is not safe from the impacts of sequestered. >> we are the customer for nnsa.
9:34 pm
we depend upon them making a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal that we can put aboard our delivery systems. so i am concerned about it. it stretches out of the stockpile life extension programs, which is not good because it makes them more expensive and we do not have time, in many of those cases. >> thank you for those answers. i want everything i can if we go into the sequester to make sure that if you protect these national laboratories that are real jewels. militaryco's installations are unique to our national security
9:35 pm
objectives due to the large and unencumbered aerospace. the sequester will impact long- term readiness as well as feature defense research in favor of a reckless plan to reduce the budget. i think you've talked about that. are you concerned with the impact of the sequestered on these new mexico installations s? what are the near and short-term consequences of reduced training at your force bases and the reduction of research and development at white sands and the air force research lab and similar test ranges? >> in the near term, you will see a identify all months of this year a sharp curtailment of range activity and other trading activities. we do not have any other choice. we will simply run out of money. in the long run, if the
9:36 pm
reductions in budgetary authority forecast, not all o these -- not all of these facilities can survive. we asked last year to make the judgments we are ready making -- to make the adjustments we are already making. taht $487 -- that $487 billion, that extends over 10 years. some of these installations will have to be reduced. both in the near and far term, i will have an affect on those installations. we do not have any choice. >> mr. carter you mentioned in your testimony about small
9:37 pm
business being hurt by this. i think that could be a real impact in new mexico and across the country. thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. secretary carter, you mentioned that the wolf is at our door on this one. i am worried the will is already inside. i'm worried that with or without sequestration, we aren't trying to acknowledge we do not like sequestration. it is ugly and it just does not work but it does force us to deal with budget cuts. it forces us to deal with a $15.4 trillion ebt. debt.
9:38 pm
if we are not working every day as lawmakers or you within the administration to make sure we are easing the pain of these cuts wherever they may fall, than the and on doing right by our constituents. i want to speak to a frustration i had where i am seeing budgetary decisions that are not making sense at a time when we are forced to prioritize. we are forced to be looking at spending reductions. this is what is going on in my state of alaska with a back door run on the air forece base. we are looking at our fy12 cr we recognize our very problematic. we have the possibility of
9:39 pm
sequestration. we have this's direction to the air force -- e have this committee's direction to the airforce. we have a -- the same move was rejected in 2005 yet the air force is moving forward with this plan. last week, they held four meetings in alaska despite the ban on non mission critical travel. we're supposed to be prioritizing yet you have the department moving forward with a plan that costs money rather than taking a enterprises like look at all our air force bases and determining where force structure reduction can fall.
9:40 pm
when mayor talking about priorities, it needs to make sense all the way -- when we are talking about priorities, it needs to make sense all the way. >> you're absolutely right. it does have to make sense be on march 1. we are paying and will pay a huge long-term price for the short-term disruptions. i am already doing things. we already have to do things to curb spending. that is another reason why short-term fixes did not help us out much. they do not give the stability we need. to the point you make, that as a legitimate issue that proceeds and a somewhat independent of sequestered. it was an issue we had last
9:41 pm
year. it is a matter of priorities. i understand there was disagreement this year about a member of the adjustments the air force made. that is why there will be a commission on the future of the air force. we are absolutely committed to working with that commission. the air force understands that and we are not going to take action that contravene the decisions that were made earlier this year. >> i would hope, we are looking long-term to our critical merit -- critical volunta military. >> may i comment on that? >> i do need to get to mr. werfel. >> we are making decisions. sequestration does force decisions that do not make any sense. as does the cr. the mostrfelm, one of
9:42 pm
a quarter responsibilities is the trust responsibilities for american indians. one of the programs we are dealing with within the ihs is a trust is a possibility to these native people. within the va, and medicare, they are off the table in terms of their cuts. given the critical nature of the health care services to our times, what actions is ihs taking to minimize the impacts of the delivery of health care on the indian community, and given the trust is a possibility -- the trust responsibility > ? i realize i've gone over my time. i apologize. rex your pointing out that --
9:43 pm
>> you are pointing out that the impact of the sequestered and packs a broad range of programs and offe-- impact of the sequesr impacts a broad range of program. it is capped at 2% but not the discretionary side. the have asked each agency -- we have asked each agency to figure out how to implement the sequestered in a way that will best serve mission, ballots in all of the priorities. we have come to the conclusion, there is no way to fully protect mission. the indiscriminate and abrupt cuts as they were designed are enormously disruptive. with respect to programs serving native americans, i will
9:44 pm
take your question back and we can work with those agencies to get you a fuller answer but it is disruptive and the are asking the agencies to do everything they can to minimize the disruption. >> that is the point of what you're getting to which is the matter what, there is no good way out of this. there are no good choices. we will go now to senator feinstein. before that, some members have to leave before they got to ask a question. we wanted to give him and affectionate welcome back. we will put their statement into the record. for the lineup, it will be boozman., andrew,
9:45 pm
then moving along. >> ticket, madam chairman. i want to begin with something he said -- thank you , madam chairman. i want to begin with something he said. i find it beginning to happen in california. california will lose the most jobs by far of any state. george mason university did a study. they predicted we would lose 225,544 jobs, of which 135,209 are from your department.
9:46 pm
with the knowledge that there will be 10 years of this, people are now beginning to make decisions about their to cut s taff and be ready. i believe next to a major war, economically, it is the worst thing that could happen for this country. we should end it. madam secretary of homeland security, you are the most precise of everybody as to what they can expect. i do energy and water. we have tried to find out what does this mean for the lab ? our staff has spent a lot of time try to figure out where the cuts are and who will suffer them. everybody is concerned that what is going to happen to them and we can give no one a straight answer. it is a bad phenomenon and it
9:47 pm
should and before it catches hold of america and as a great deal of damage. let me ask about one thing. for california, as happens to involve the only shipyard on the west coast. nasco in san dieog. 3,500 jobs. we worked hard to achieve long lead financing for three mobile platform ships. we have the financing. what will happen to nasco and the financing? >> not good things. i'm concerned about it. there is a continuing resolution program that i mentioned earlier, the authority to proceed on the basis that we planned in shipbuilding. the sequester a reduction in budgetary caps over the long run will have a huge effect on our
9:48 pm
separate building -- on our shipbuilding industry. i am very concerned about that. there is no question there will be a major restructuring in shipbuilding as a result. that is one part of our defense -- >> will it lose its long lead financing? >> and depends on whether the continuing resolution issue is resolved or not. if it is, there is a chance we can do that. but that is exactly what i'm talking about in terms of imprecision, on certainty. people have to make decisions with a suspect to contracts. so they make the negatively. it is my understanding and number of agencies, nsa, all
9:49 pm
fall under the defense budget. it is my understanding that director clapper has asked the be involved in these decisions. have you worked out an agreement with him? >> yes. he and i talk all the time. i do with all of our manageres, there is a huge ahmad of the killed here and a huge number of mannesmann decisions we're try to make it into the uncertainty that he mentioned -- is huge number of management decisions we are trying to make in the uncertainty that he mentioned. we do tend to make conservative decisions. if this ball goes away, we will regret.
9:50 pm
because they will introduce inefficiency for no reason at all. >> thank you. >> senator blunt. >> thank you. thank you for the time. we keep talking about the fact that we can take some balanced approach between spending cuts and revenues. i am confused by the idea that there appear to be no spending cuts that can be taken. we have $60 billion of new revenue this year that we would not have had last year. but we cannot find $85 billion for the -- worth the cost. i will accept the idea that nobody told anybody this sequester was going to happen even though it was in the law. i had the chance to be in a hearing with secretary carter this week and i ask what no. did
9:51 pm
they submit for the omb budget planning this year and he said they submitted a number based on the pre-to question no.. -- pre sequster number. so once again, we are not prioritizing. you're saying this is taking us by surprise, we do not have time to cut " we are not making a plan to kick a cut next time -- plan to take a cut next time either. what was the guidance from ombn on the 14 budget? >> it was 5 below 2012 enacted.
9:52 pm
the -- the budget control act of 2011 had with its roughly $1 trillion in discretionary spending cuts imposed through spending caps. bills were and body and the president's 2013 budget the challenge now is $85 billion over seven months. that is the challenge you can plan for you cannot avoid the harmful impact of. >> who accept that. -- i accept that. it seems to fly in the face of the idea that normandie knows how to reach this goal even if
9:53 pm
half of it is revenue. it seems we are not planning that very well. secretary donovan, to clarify on the reservation funding issue, we said our funding would be cut by a third crew specific reservation. why would it be a third? you try to find by% doubled at the end of the year, i can see. you can get back to me if you do not know why it is the third. >> i am sorry, i am not clear. >> you mentioned a specific education funding and a reservation that would be cut by one-third in the remainder of this year. >> i believe it was in secretary duncan's. >> i'm sorry. >> it is all secretary donovan's fault. [laughter]
9:54 pm
>> this is aid that goes to native american areas, areas where there are military families and bases. we would have to cut this money right away. we disproportionately from those areas because there is a lack of property taxes. it started that district's budget -- >> the normal cuts in normal degette would take as well as the eight we would give? >> and this would happen now, not down the road. >> i am but to ask and omb question. -- i am going to ask an omb question. it will be working on questions about on-site inspectors.
9:55 pm
if they did not show up at a meat processing facility, that facility cannot open. fda can come by occasionally and that does not relate impact whether that plant can be opened or not but if the usda inspector does not show up, the plant cannot open. is there any way to prioritize those kinds of individuals showing up other workers to show up that day? >> i do not think there is, senator. the with the budget isn't structured and that 88% of their total funding is spent on salaries and benefits for front- line personnel doing the inspections you referred to. it becomes a mass issue. they will get a certain amount of budget that will be cancelled if we hit the sequestered. there is no way to find other sources of funds because 88% of
9:56 pm
the entire budget are those very people that need to be at those plants during the inspection to keep them open. this is one of the very tangible and clear and significant impact of sequestered. this division within usda will not make its core mission, sending inspectors to these locations. therefore under a program laws and regulations, they will be -- there will be stoppages of work carried it is a very serious concern. >> the legal requirement to be at the facility, we will be asking that. >> madam chair, thank you for your leadership. i cannot think of a better person to be in that chair to help us address the challenges ahead of us. i look forward to doing my part to work with you and the ranking member.
9:57 pm
one of my colleagues last week made an observation worth repeating today. he said, offering up flexibility, which is what some of my colleagues are offering to deal with the sequestered, as like giving the passengers of the titanic and often after they hit the iceberg as to what deccan they would like to relocate. -- to what deck they will like to relocate. i think our committee would be well advised to deal with reality. we have mentioned the word several times. why is it not that some of my colleagues on the other side will acknowledge the reality that the revenues coming into the federal government are lowest levels since president eisenhower was the president?
9:58 pm
what is it about the reality that the other side of the aisle will not embrace? is it they did not believe the fact? do they disagree with that fact? do they have some other facts to put on the table? if they do, i will listen to that. i have not heard anyone question that. so that is a fact. it helps to frame the debate which is, we cannot rearrange the passengers on the titanic and suggest that we are doing anybody a favor. we have to bring more revenue at $600 million to my friends from missouri, that is not enough. we have a $4 trillion problem. we have or did put cuts to spending that something is to arrive -- that are too high.
9:59 pm
do the other side and expect us to do $2.8 trillion more? where revenues are going to come -- what revenues are going to come? the same ones that argued for no new revenue also come to my committee and the men i'd double the number of border agent in the homeland security budget. i have done that. from 9,000 to 21,000/ we have built 651 miles of fence, a third of the southern border. this is a land border. have apprehended 1.2 million illegal people coming across the
10:00 pm
border. we have added money at the request of members to do this now these same members c- find additional money -- now these same member [indiscernible] additional money. >> i am having an outer body experience. yesterday i was before the senate judiciary committee on immigration reform and it was pressing about why we are not doing more at the border. the administration has put records amount of resources at the border. that needs to be sustained and built upon. under sequester, our calculations are we will lose an hour, 5000 border patrol agents over the next year.
10:01 pm
staffing at the ports of entry, we will look at reductions, furloughs of 12 to 14 days for every port officer. we will look at not being able to invest in the technology that is so important to make the most out of the boots on the ground we have at the border. we are looking at longer wait times, less security and interior enforcement will not be able to meet. >> my next question you have the answer in writing. international travel is a
10:02 pm
driver of our economy, bring in jobs to america. if we cannot put the right number of customs, that will have a terrible impact on our ability for international trade. i will leave the question and ask you to answer it in writing. how states will be affected at that turn.
10:03 pm
>> we are working with our house counterparts on this. our president submits the budget. we asked the ranking members to move out swiftly and smartly to begin their hearing. this committee, the administration is late submitting the budget to us. we will have a time line and be ready for markup in the late spring and over the summer. we are going to make every effort to have a regular order and follow the traditions of calendar to do that. in 2014, we will have real hearings and real debate. and i want to thank senator
10:04 pm
shelby for the way we are moving this forward. >> it is good to be here. i think i am correct in stating the veterans administration is a good example? >> is hard to hear you, sir. i think that is better for you. >> that is how it is when you are low man on the totem pole. not very well-equipped. we appreciate you will be in here. the house has acted a couple times, they sent a couple bills over. the senate hasn't acted and the president hasn't acted. the time we have going forward,
10:05 pm
it looks like we will have to work through this. i would like to ask about a couple of things. a lot of veterans families have contacted us. can you tell us the veterans' benefits will not be affected? >> those funded through the department of veterans affairs, they are explicitly exempt under the law. but there are certain veterans' services funded out of other accounts and other agencies that would be affected. >> va hospitals -- >> that would be exempt under sequester. >> in your testimony, you mentioned they are investigating ways to reduce the problem of the $3 billion shortfall? can you give us some ways that you hope to avoid a problem being there.
10:06 pm
how you will make up for the $3 billion. >> we are looking at that and to avoid the shortfall, causing us to have to stop giving care in the last month or so of the year. i will get back to you in writing because it is complicated. we have not found a way to do it legally yet, but we are working on it. if i may, i would like to get back to you on that. we understand the gravity of the problem. >> i think everyone on the committee, it is something we would be concerned about. in the past, when budget years were tight, the faa has proposed reductions in contract hours and flight service stations, small
10:07 pm
cities in rural areas. would you implement these reductions -- are these the type of reductions will see as a result of sequestration that would disproportionately affect rural america versus urban america? >> there are definitely risks. they will face a cut of $600 million under sequester, a vast majority will be furloughed for one day for the rest of the year. this is going to reduce air traffic levels across the country, causing delays. it is my understanding that there will be a curtailment of service at low activity airports. there will be impacted and feel the effect of the sequester. >> he mentioned that the air
10:08 pm
force plans to cut facilities and maintenance project by about half, including cuts to 189 projects. do you have a list? >> i can provide you with that level of detail. it is basically everywhere. >> one of the things i am concerned about, if we do go and the sequestration, i have heard that they may have to reduce flying hours by as much as 18%. and very quickly, can you tell us how how that will affect the air worthiness of our pilots? the reality is that this actually could mean 30% reduction moving forward.
10:09 pm
>> no question, flying hours will steeply declined. that means two things. first, the unit's except for afghan training, we are prioritizing -- >> that will make the other -- >> it means they are not going to be ready for other contingencies. it is a real national security concern. if you play this out, if proficiency declines, and it takes awhile to get them back. you will see that in our air wings and throughout the year force. that is why i said short-term disruption is long-term harm, and that is why we need some solution.
10:10 pm
>> the next speaker was going to be a senator who is not here. we now go to senator sheehan, alexander, and cochrane. >> i am pleased to be able to serve on this committee with you. i am particularly pleased to hear you talk about the effort to return to regular order. for all of our panelists, thank you very much for being here. as the congress, we have been unable to deal with this debt and deficit. i was impressed and pleased to hear all of you talk about, in your remarks, that these
10:11 pm
automatic cuts that go into effect are not just going to affect government jobs and programs, but private-sector jobs and private sector efforts to put people back to work. they will have an impact on businesses, families, jobs we are creating an impact on economic activity. i am sure that you referred to secretary carter in your remarks, the fourth quarter activity last year. we saw a decline in economic activity for the first time since 2009. that is because of the reduction in public spending, economists suggested that was a concern about the sequester. we may see a loss of 1.4 million jobs if the sequester doesn't affect. feinstein referred to the george
10:12 pm
mason study that suggests we will lose 2 million jobs, 1 million on defense and 1 million on domestic if we don't deal with this. you referred to the comprehensive effort to address the sequestered. what i think about the comprehensive effort to address that and deficit, i think it has got to be balanced. look at the domestic side, the domestic side. i think we need to look at mandatory programs and the think we do look at revenue. we need to solve this problem for the long term. we would not run our family budgets this way. we would not run businesses this way and we should not run the government this way. it is a detriment to all of the taxpayers across the country. one of the things that i think that we have not talked about is
10:13 pm
the cost of what we're doing right now out in terms of the sequester. i wonder if you can give us an estimate of what is costing us to plan for the sequester and if it goes into effect, what some of those costs might be. specific coste a estimate. i can tell you that i am taking a lot of the central coordinating roles across government in planning for a sequester. i have a sense of the impact it is having and my colleagues can certainly speak to it. it is enormously destructive to agency operations. you hear stories of people in meetings from doing the mission critical work they are supposed to be doing to be pulled into a meeting to discuss how the plan for this contingency that was
10:14 pm
never meant to occur. and at the end of the day, the planning is going to fall short, mitigating the many harmful impact. >> let me ask you, secretary carter, because before the armed services committee, you talked about the cost of a sequester that will have a long-term impact in terms of shipbuilding, for example. >> unit costs will go up on every program affected by a sequester. we can provide you with those numbers whether it is the joint strike fighter, still at the very moment we are trying to be parsimonious with the taxpayer dollar, we are wasting it. by forcing our industry partners to the haven and economically inefficient way, that is very frustrating to me.
10:15 pm
>> one of the things that the office of the inspector general and the federal housing administration program has recovered about $1.5 billion in able to put those to better use. can you talk about how that program might be affected by the sequester? >> it is in just the internal cost to the agency. it is a return on investment, if you will, the dollars we are spending. it doesn't take into effect where we are saving money. our inspector general, that funding would be reduced just as it would in any other program. the past year alone, we have recovered over $1 billion from lenders that were not making loans according to our standards. and having to reduce our own oversight as well as the inspector general losing
10:16 pm
critical staff, it will lead to greater losses to the taxpayer that we are gaining by making these cuts. we know that not only do we save lives by getting veterans off of the street, but we reduce costs from emergency rooms, shelters, prisons, and our range of other institutions. we save more money by housing and homeless veteran than we do simply because of those. >> i understand you will be the new ranking member, is that right? >> i love forward to that opportunity, and i have reached out expressing my desire to have a good committee operation. i am delighted to hear her your
10:17 pm
suggestion if we're going operate under regular order. i have been asked if i like being on the appropriations committee and i look forward to your tenacity to see that we do that. first of all, in the regard, i look forward to the hearings were we get to the point where we're talking about the appropriations process. i look forward to addressing the issues of spending a long term setting rather than the matter of a few months where sequestration will apply. i will start with you, i don't think in the years i have been a member of this committee or the homeland security committee, that we have ever had you in front of us where we have not talked about the topics of the national science facility. i was reluctant to do that today but you give me no option because our time is up.
10:18 pm
unless your release the funding in the next week, the contracts expire. the last time we were together, you indicated it was about time to fish or cut bait. your authorized the transfer of real estate from the state of kansas, and allow the transfer of the land so that this facility could be built. you have the authority, once again, to take another step to release the $40 million this congress has appropriated to meet the state funding, to complete the utility pad. i am anxious to know if you're ready to fish or cut bait. >> we have been working with the state of kansas, and they increased their own
10:19 pm
participation i view it as a huge security need, and a huge need for agricultural industry. with respect to moving forward, i am aware of the contract issue. i might say this perfectly illustrates the problem we are all having. i am trying to work with congress to build a facility in kansas. it is a big investment and will take some years to construct. but the country really needs it. it is virtually impossible to do a long-term capital budget when we have a 12 budget, we don't really have a 13 budget, and you know what will happen with 14. have to echo secretary carter that we are making all
10:20 pm
these things more difficult, more expensive, and at the risk of really encouraging rest to the nation, i am aware of the tough issues. i have a call with the governor of kansas this evening. you have made it almost impossible to manage this large department. >> i assume it is the universal you at not these pacific yew. >> that is right and i would not want to single you out. >> let me stress the importance of your conversation with our governor, but the money is appropriated with in your realm of releasing those dollars.
10:21 pm
>> is appropriated, but what do we do with the out years? >> is an issue that will rely on congress to fulfill its obligation to fund facility we believe is important. i am not critical of the administration any more that i am critical of congress. it is embarrassing in the circumstances in which we don't do our work. continue to passed continuing resolutions. i asked to be a member of this committee, i think there is important work to do and i am pleased that our chair is as tenacious as she is to make sure that this is a process that the senate complies with. the you i understand is all of
10:22 pm
us, and it is past time for this congress to function. in 18 seconds i have left, let me as a focus on nih. the impact of sequestration, i believe medical resources are significant and help save lives and reduce the cost of health care. a description for how it handles sequestration in the sense that the money goes there and is provided in grants elsewhere. will that money be used internally for research projects? if there is a reduction in spending, will reductions, an equal fashion, or how will they be divided or the 80% of the research done across the country by universities and
10:23 pm
research facilities. >> it is my understanding that nih will have to issue hundreds of you were awards that would have spiraling impacts of delaying and halting vital work, placing prior investment at risk and ultimately setting back work on a chronic illness and disease. i am not aware of the exact split, but i think the important point is that research and innovation is important. >> i am still interested an answer to the question. i would also encourage you to provide heehaw committee for the $4 trillion plan you responded to.
10:24 pm
>> if i can respond to that, the president's budget, when it existed, they used those. a basis for those negotiations. they submitted very specific plans on how to save $14 trillion over 10 years. it is really up to congress to work through those issues, get a bill that can pass -- pass both the house and senate and get us on a balanced attack. >> i have not been participating in those meetings that occurred, nor was i member of the select committee, and it would be great
10:25 pm
to see a proposal in writing as to what that plan is. and only go back to regular order, let's discuss those. >> thank you for your question. i was visiting thursday morning, and offered hospitality. i will ensure that your question is asked, and one of the questions i have, the impact of sequester and your staff is more than welcome. they can hear the first name briefing that i received. and senator harkin's does that. his statements will be in the record. the deputy secretary will be with you. as you know, his new role.
10:26 pm
>> let me follow up on one of the points that he made about the department of agriculture. the law on the inspectors say the plant can't operate unless inspectors are there. closing these plans for 15 days could result in lost volume of 2 million pounds of meat, beef and pork. 3.3 billion pounds of poultry, and 200 million pounds of egg products. it will drive the price up, so this will adversely affect every consumer in america and be very destructive to the food supply chain that we have in this country. one thing that the senator did not cover, there will be 100,000
10:27 pm
income residents that will lose their rental assistance and to enable them to stay in safe and affordable housing. for their households, average income is $803. these are low-income people. my first question, as these take effect, it happens in every agency. or will they be phased in over time? >> what we will see is agencies
10:28 pm
will start doing key things first. in the manner in which the furloughs are implemented are fair and equitable. next, there will be a notice period that are different depending on the agencies. the intensification and completion of that with unions were appropriate. so the furloughs themselves will happen along a continuum, not exactly on march 1. and also spending reductions as
10:29 pm
well. >> have you done a study or analysis of the adverse effect of the u.s. economy? a study for the entire u.s. economy? >> we do not have an official estimate, but i will point out that a range of third-party estimates, some of them have been raised during this hearing. they show a negative impact of 0.5%-0.7% in 2013 alone. what it translates to, the president is clear it will translate to hundreds of thousands if not more, job
10:30 pm
losses. we have talked that these are difficult to measure. there is pulling $85 billion out of contractors very abruptly and suddenly. you have impacts on the supply chains. it is an don't know if important micro economic measure. what does that translate into? in particular, middle-class get jobs. >> i only have about 30 seconds here. i know that you talked about when it comes to the industrial base, these contracts have provisions and then for if the government breaks the contract, there are penalties.
10:31 pm
he said that the unit cost goes up. has the department of defense done a calculation of how much this will cost in terms of efficiency and what dollars will be wasted as part of this? >> we do that program by program and it is related to security. a good measure of the impact, even if we for low everybody, all 800,000 civilians for the maximum we are allowed to do legally, we would get 5 billion and dollars out of the $46 billion we need. where is the other 41 billion going to come from. whether there are vacating ships or weapons systems. it is a huge impact on them.
10:32 pm
>> did you have the statement on record? said sir alexander? -- senator alexander? >> i think the witnesses for coming this morning. you mentioned a plan to reduce the debt, that is a public document. i assume you are familiar with it. >> i am. >> can you detail exactly the plans for reducing entitlement spending over 10 years? >> i can provide you additional detail there. the 2013 budget that contains his plan has within it, with respect to deficit reduction -- >> these the specific proposal to reduce spending on entitlement programs over 10 years.
10:33 pm
>> $362 billion in mandatory savings and it includes such provisions as reducing medicare debt coverage, alighting payments for medical education and rural providers. increasing income-related premiums. alighting drug treatments -- at $362 billion over 10 years. there is an additional $270 billion in the budget in other mandatory programs such as eliminating direct payments to usda subsidies, changes to civilian and military retirement. increases in security fees and the u.s. postal service. that covers what i have here for mandatory programs and the president's overall plan. >> that is $600 billion over 10
10:34 pm
years, and reductions in mandatory spending. $4 trillion? >> it builds on $1 trillion previously achieved. that is the component of mandatory spending in the president's budget. >> the problem with that is that entitlement spending is most of the problem we have, is it not? with spending and deficit? the budget control act addressed discretionary spending which is what this committee deals with. and if we follow the caps that we put on discretionary spending over the next 10 years, that part of the budget would grow at about the rate of inflation. is that not right? >> that is my understanding. >> if the whole budget grew at
10:35 pm
the rate of inflation, we would not have a problem, would we? >> going back to the fundamental components -- >> i don't want to talk about that, i want to talk about entitlement spending. you said there is a $4 trillion goal. i said you have 38% or 39% growing at the rate of 3 or 4% a year. we have raised taxes, put caps on discretionary spending, entitlement spending is going to soak up all the money that you all are worried about and there is no plan for the president to deal with it. this isn't just the president's problem. i was sitting there trying to put more money in the higher education in the federally mandated medicaid was soaking up money that i would like to put
10:36 pm
in higher education. i would like to see a plan to do what his own bed commission said we needed to do. restructure medicare and medicaid and a way that saves in so that people can count on them have so they don't squeeze out of the budget and everything else that we need to do according to the debt commission. federal revenues will be enough in 2025 just to pay for entitlements and the dead. there will not be any money for any of the things that any of you say are very important to the country. states have to balance their budgets. why don't we get together during these next couple of months and do what everybody knows we have to do, get control of entitlement spending so we don't have the problem you are talking about. it will not happen unless the
10:37 pm
president leads the way with specific proposals that he has not yet done. >> i am not disputing the growth of entitlement cost is the major driver in our deficit reduction challenges. i am pointing to the fact that members of both parties have pointed to a $4 trillion benchmark in deficit reduction savings as a smart and sensible next move. >> said a turkish worker and i have put on the table a plan to reduce entitlement spending. savings as a>> of the presidento negotiate on sensible entitlements -- >> he is supposed to lead. >> he has put forward a plan. >> he has not put forward a plan to deal with entitlements spending because the plan which you related $600 billion out of $4 trillion and does not address
10:38 pm
restructuring the programs that are causing the government to go out of control and causing devastation that has been described. thank you, madam chairman and i recused by time. >> to negotiate on a preview of thing. >> is a pleasure to be here at my first meeting of the appropriations committee and i look forward to engaging in these type of discussions as representatives of respective states on both sides of the aisle on how to take the nation forward. that is what the discussion is all about and don't ask, if we take the budget control act and combine it with sequestration had the interests, how much of the savings? ballpark?
10:39 pm
>> the budget control act had roughly $1 trillion in deficit wouldtion, the sequester i impact by 1.2 trillion. >> about $2.20 trillion. they had $600 billion on the defense, $900 billion on non- defense. is that more or less than the $600 billion in revenue that is coming out of the december 31 deal. >> it is more, by a significant amount. >> i hear folks on both sides of the aisle talking about a plan
10:40 pm
for revenue and expenditure reductions, is that anywhere close to what is being pursued with sequestration? >> no. >> how can it be replaced by revenue? >> to achieve more balanced, yes. >> is there a difference between the $5,000 tax credit and $5,000 expenditure on a similar formula? either a program or the cost of the budget? >> i don't want to speak to the program, but the budget impact would be the same. >> if i spend $5,000 that i appropriate, isn't that basically the same $5,000? when we are talking about spending, why not across the board reductions on tax loopholes, credits, and deductions. >> of the president believes we should be talking about that.
10:41 pm
>> there are a series of things i would like to see. there is a lot more spending than that on tax loopholes, and wouldn't be closer to the balance we are talking about if we close the tax loopholes and get back to the regular order? >> that is the fundamental guiding principle that the president wants for the solution. >> the proposal goes back a ways, but it deals with gaming in corporate status. would it make more sense to end the spending on the tax loophole or to cut special education entitle one? -- and title one. >> the best investment we can make is to get children off to a
10:42 pm
great start. we have to invest in education, smartly and wisely. we cannot cut that investment. >> there is the stock-option loophole, and offshore profits. it is a $24 billion cost. i am not talking about the numbers being exactly even, but does it make sense to close this tax loophole or to cut a vast number of the affordable housing programs? >> our entire budget is over 50% of the folks that we serve. elderly people with disabilities. the entire budget is less than
10:43 pm
the $24 billion that you talked about. i think it is an essential investment that we need to continue to make. the costs of cutting it are devastating to families, it raises health care costs and costs for communities. when families are not housed, it actually costs more. >> i looked at just a small number of these tax loopholes, what offshore that subsidizes our job and manufacturing. just for the total of $90 billion, roughly the same amount. basically, it can protect programs that support whores services - -core -- core ser vices.
10:44 pm
>> absolutely. >> i am out of time, thank you very much. >> senator cochran, you were not here when i think you during the time of his passing when you were the ranking member. i really thank you and reiterate that you're a big help during that time was very much appreciated. the way the staff worked together, and the way we worked together. they were direct guidance to me, and very much appreciated. i think it would help during a
10:45 pm
really awkward time. even a sad time of transition, i wanted to say that. >> i deeply appreciate your generous comments and your friendship over the years. we appreciate your leadership on this committee as well. this is an example of a hearing that has gotten into the details more than any other approach. which is such a big undertaking, these are real challenges that we face. too little money trying to solve too many problems. there is never enough to go around. we have to identify the priorities and work together whether we like it or not. the administration can't just send out the dicks, and
10:46 pm
establish what money each department is going to get. and so this hearing is very important. i think it is due in large part to the even-handed chairwoman. and all the members that put their best efforts in carrying out responsibilities, we thank you. i will shut up and not prolong it any further unnecessarily. i did want to ask a question or to about sequestration. i am wondering out about it. the point is that we are operating under new restraints, if you will. in general, the sequester as it is written, cuts off all appropriated accounts at a level
10:47 pm
that is the same percentage. unless there are priorities identified by this committee or congress in consultation with the executives, we are not going to be able to carry out the will of the people who has expressed through the congress and our appropriations committee. it would be a misguided effort if we turned it over to the administration, though, to come in every right and appropriations bill. i think we are going to learn by doing and we look forward to working with you in a cooperative way in recognizing that any changes or modifications will have to have the collective involvement of both branches of government. other specificy questions except to express
10:48 pm
appreciation and thank the chair for her leadership. >> senator reid. >> thank you, i want to add not only my best wishes for your services but they senator cochrane. let me ask secretary donna the question. we worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass the act which was directed at helping homeless veterans. it is disturbing to learn that about 100,000 homeless people may be removed from current housing or emergency shelters if sequestration goes through. >> that is the reality.
10:49 pm
the act was bipartisan because we recognized both that we need to do more on homelessness, not only the right thing to do morally, but from a fiscal perspective. veterans programs are protected, he had the vash program would be protected, but 10% of all the people that we serve in regular home less programs are veterans. veterans are 50% more likely to be home less than the average citizen. it is a tragedy. instead of cutting veterans from housing, that would be tragic. the cuts in funding for the public housing programs and the doctor programs more broadly mean that if the fees go down,
10:50 pm
last year we had six housing authorities turn back the vouchers for homeless veterans. unthinkable, because there was not adequate funding. even if it is protected, it would lead the housing authorities turning those vouchers back. it is perverse because the truth is, we would be housing those folks in shelters, prisons, emergency rooms, places that are much more expensive than the house and we provide. not only would we have a terrible human cost, but raising the fiscal cost. >> you have raised a theme that i have heard secretary carter echo before the defense committee.
10:51 pm
one of the great ironies is the sequestration ends up costing more money than saving it. can you elaborate on that? >> all the programs required to be stretched out will increase their unit costs, in many cases, dramatically. we are forcing the industry to make rapid adjustments. they will find it hard to recover. it will be expensive to recover. you will see us paying more in the long run for everything we do. we can do the most we can with the taxpayers' money and this makes it impossible. >> you will have to break contracts and pay a penalty fees because you don't have the
10:52 pm
funds to do it? >> i don't think we would like to take that particular path in most cases. what really will happen is that we won't be able to enter into contracts in the future, particularly ones that we in the industry partners have anticipated. they are tooled up at staff up to do it and we can't enter into a new contract. funds to do it? these are not contract terminations, but we are failing to exercise options as the year goes on for these are not contract maintenance, a base of operations, and so forth. they are a big deal for the people that do the work. >> we are searching for ways to offset the cost of the
10:53 pm
sequestration. with respect to border patrol and some of themaintenance, othy national security components, what if you literally could not fill positions? >> the results will be that we will be less able to secure the border between the reports. we will end up staffing fewer lanes. there will be disruptions in coast guard activities, disruptions in airport activities. a disruption in cargo that delays the whole supply chain. there'll be many deleterious effects. >> the ranking member.
10:54 pm
>> it came at a dysfunctional time. security>> about sequestrationd every adjective unborn the man to say this is dumb. can we agree this is a daunting? are the iranians watching us in terms of national security? what signal would it be sending to the iranians to begin to dismantle your force as they try to wrap up their nuclear program? >> i think it directly shows a failure of resolve that we are not serious about implementing our new defense strategy. that is the kind of signal
10:55 pm
whether it is iran, north korea, they are watching us right now. they are seeing if we have the resolve to carry that out. secretary napolitano, what signal will it be sending the people trying to come here illegally if we stop securing our borders? >> we have done so much over the past five years to really get that border more secure. it will just go backwards at a critical time when congress is looking at the system. it runs counter to everything we are trying to do. >> it undercuts the gains that we made, and it signals the radical islamists?
10:56 pm
you said you would reduce your pay by 1/5? how did you arrive at that number? >> if we sequester someone to the maximum extent possible, they will lose one day a week, and i don't think it is right that they lose that and i don't even though i can't be sequestered. >> i think it would be high wise for us to follow your lead. that all of us follow your model and for every day it is in effect, the president should have his pay docked and we should as well to show that we don't live on a a completely
10:57 pm
different planet like some people do. secretary duncan, how do you compete in the twenty first century without competing in education? >> lots of benchmarks, they are ahead of us over 30%. >> have you done graduation's lately? where people are receiving a ph.d. in science? >> is a diverse group. >> when it came to the masters graduates in the hard sciences, there is one guy that everybody clouds for because everybody comes from india and china, which is a great thing. i wish we had more native-born americans getting into hard sciences, but we need to welcome
10:58 pm
people throughout the world to come get an education. and we should make it easier for them to stay and be part of our country. i don't see how you fix the education system if we are going to attack the budget like this. if we found ourselves in doingary creon's, we keep this dumb thing and it has momentum of its own, and i am having to decide where the money goes, would you agree with me, secretary bentsen? -- duncan? if i had to pick the department of education and department of defense, i would pick the department of defense? >> i think these are false
10:59 pm
choices. >> if i make that dumb decision, do you agree it should be national security? >> we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. >> you have leadership, i think you have a chance. >> if i had to pick, can anybody give a direct answer? >> is a false choice, it is a false dichotomy. he already said in his testimony, you have to have well-educated people. >> i will wrap it up and say it is a dumb choice but if i had to make that choice, i will pick the department of defense.
11:00 pm
>> is that question entrapment? >> thank you for indulging me. it >> first of all, we are about to wrap up as you can see. in terms of the members participating, we had a 98% participation rate. that was excellent. i have one final question that i will exercise. here we are. it pictured march 1. it is now midnight. the clock has moved. can you paid for me the picture of how sequester is triggered? do all the lights go out in several buildings?
11:01 pm
the welder at the shipyard, the person managing the weather satellite, do we tell them, do not show up every monday until congress acts? can you paint for me literally what happens when the phrase " sequester"is triggered? >> it will be multi dimensional and its impacts. intense bargaining is going on with unions getting ready to issue furlough notices for hundreds of thousands of employees. this takes time. once we get into an area where the sequestration order is issued, it is real and serious. then it becomes law. that is an important symbolic moment. federal contractors will receive word of the other contracts will be impacted whether terminated
11:02 pm
or modified. it will get an idea of where agencies will not be contacting. they will be digesting affirmation about or their financial impact -- their financial footprint will be impacted in the education and health and other areas. the list goes on and on. the reality is agencies because we are in a seven month time frame, agencies will have to move quickly to meet this. we are doing the preparatory steps. once march 1 hits and the funds are cancelled, everything we are doing in preparation becomes even more real and creates that much more uncertainty. >> the first month issuing of notices to people -- the word trigger sequester --
11:03 pm
>> it is complicated. there are some elements of government operations that will feel more immediate impact. because of the furloughs, we spoke about the meat packing element. it will take some time due to legal requirements. what the world looks like on march 1 is a very intense presaging actions that are sending out notices and warnings and all kinds of elements of how the sequester will play out. it is different from a government shutdown. a government shutdown means effective at midnight you can no longer incurred obligations and things do actually shut down. >> i think we can go across that
11:04 pm
precipices. pullback later. we had analogies here with the will of being outside the door in the room. the reality is, i think it becomes extraordinarily problematic and it serious once we get march 1. then it is real and they come to fruition anymore exponential way. >> i think it could turn into a firestorm. let me thank the witnesses. you presented excellent testimony. you answered things and a forthright, candid way and i appreciate it. i would like to know some other agencies were invited like hhs.
11:05 pm
they had to be in chicago. you make your choices and see what happens. other agencies have submitted letters. for those, that is why we really appreciated it to do that. i want to tell the members, for the record, we have letters from every agency thanks to the cooperation. it will be entered into the public record and a staff of both sides of the aisle. they will be able to scrutinize them while we work on this. i would like to thank the active participation, the fact that everybody spoke with an the five a minute rule. it is a little past 12:30. i think this is the tone and tempo i had hoped people would
11:06 pm
exercise due diligence. the questions were excellent. the decorum was such we hope to -- we hope it would spread within the congress. we fear outside foreign creditors. at times foreign competitors. this is a self-inflicted wound. i think we need to deal with it and we need to deal with it expeditiously. thank you. if there are no further questions, the committee stands in recess. thank you very much.
11:07 pm
>> and a few moments, president obama promotes early childhood education. john of dinner talks about the congressional agenda. -- john banner talks about the congressional agenda. how departments of the affected by the budget cuts known as sequestration. several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. the oversight subcommittee look
11:08 pm
set spending at the homeland security department on c-span 2. at 10:00, a sub committee examines the domestic use of drones' sharing aerospace with other aircraft. it includes representatives of the federal aviation, nasa, and the government accountability office. >> i think women themselves and many cases were interested in politics but had no vehicle to express that in their own lives so they were attracted to men who were going to become politically attractive or were already politically active it. >> i think i find them intriguing. half of them precisely because they are so obscure historical. half of these women probably would be almost totally unrecognizable to most men and
11:09 pm
women on the street. >> this season -- c-span deviate's its series, "first lady's." and exploring the lives of the women who served as first ladies from martha washington to michelle obama. season one begins at 9:00 eastern and pacific on that c- span, suspend radio, and c- >> president obama proposed working with states to provide -- he went to georgia which has statewide prekindergarten. this is 16 minutes.
11:10 pm
[applause] >> hello, everybody. it is great to be in georgia. i cannot imagine a more romantic way to spend valentine's day than with all of you and all the press here. michele says hello. she made me promise to get back in time for our date tonight. that is important. i have already got a gift. i have got the flowers. i was telling folks the flowers are easier because i got this rose garden. [laughter] a lot of people keep flowers around. [laughter] i want to acknowledge a few
11:11 pm
people here. congressman hank johnson is here. [applause] your mayor is here. [applause] another major you may know snuck in here. [applause] i want to acknowledge the school board, who i had a chance to meet and has helped do so much great work. [applause] i want to thank mary for the wonderful introduction and for teaching me how to count earlier today. [laughter] i have got to tell you, it was wonderful to be there. i want to thank all the teachers and parents and the administrators, because behind every child who is doing great,
11:12 pm
there is a great teacher. i am proud of every single one of you for the work you do here today. [applause] on tuesday, i delivered my state of the union address and i laid out a plan for reigniting what i believe is the true engine of economic growth -- a thriving, growing, rising middle-class. that also means ladders for people to get into the middle class. the point i put solid says we need to make smart choices as a country, both to grow our economy, shrink our deficits in a balanced way, by cutting what we do not need, but then investing in what we do need to make sure everybody has a chance to get ahead in life. what we need is to make america a magnet for new jobs by investing in manufacturing,
11:13 pm
energy, better roads, bridges, and schools. we have to make sure hard work is rewarded with a wage you can live on. we have a responsibility to give every american the chance to learn the skills and education they need for a really competitive, global job market. as i said tuesday night, that education has to start at the earliest possible age. that is what you have realized here. [applause] study after study shows that the earlier a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. here is the thing. we are not doing enough to give all of our kids that chance.
11:14 pm
the kids we saw today, that i had a chance to spend time with in mary's classroom, they are some of the lucky ones. fewer than three in 104-year-old are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. most middle-class parents cannot afford a few hundred dollars a week for private preschool. for the poor children who need it the most, the lack of access to a great preschool education can have an impact on their entire lives. we all pay a price for that. this is not speculation. study after study shows the achievement gap starts off very young. when kids go into kindergarten, their first day, if they already have a lot of vocabulary words, they do not know their numbers and shapes and have the capacity for focus, they are going to behind that first day and it is hard for them to catch up over time.
11:15 pm
at a certain point, a lot of teachers have seen this, kids are not stupid. they know they are behind at a certain point. then they start pulling back. and they act like they are disinterested in school because they are frustrated they are not doing as well as they should. you may lose them. that is why i propose working with states like georgia to make high-quality preschool available to every child in america. every child. [applause] every dollar we invest in high-
11:16 pm
quality early education can save dollars early on, boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, reducing violent crime. in states like georgia, who make a priority to educate our young children, states like oklahoma, students do not just show up in kindergarten more prepared to learn, but they are also more likely to grow up reading and doing math at a higher level, a graduate in high-school. hope is found in what works. this works. we know it works. you are looking for a goodang for your educational buck. this is it. right here. [applause]
11:17 pm
so, that is why even in times of tight budgets, states like georgia and oklahoma have worked to make a preschool slot available for every parent looking for one for their child. they are being staffed with folks like mary. qualified, highly educated teachers. this is not babysitting. this is teaching. [applause] at the age our children are just sponges. their minds are growing fast. kids are taught numbers, states, how to answer questions,
11:18 pm
discover patterns, play well with others, and the teachers in the classroom, they have got a coach coming in and working with them on best practices and paying attention to how they can constantly improve what they are doing. that playing with others is a trait we could use more of in washington. [applause] maybe we need to bring its teachers up. have quiet time every once in a while. time out. [laughter] as the early childhood learning center i visited earlier, nearly 200 kids are spending full days in classrooms with highly qualified teachers. [applause] i was working with them to build towers and replicate sculptures and sing songs. i admit, i was not always the
11:19 pm
fastest guy on some of this stuff. the kids were beating me to the punch. [laughter] through this interactive learning, they are learning math, writing, how to tell stories, and one of the things you have done here, you have combined kids from different income levels, you have got disabled kids all in the same classroom, so we are all learning together. [applause] what that means is all the kids are being leveled up. you are not seeing some of that same stratification you are seeing that eventually leads to these massive achievement gaps. before you know it, these kids will be moving on to bigger and better things in kindergarten.
11:20 pm
and they will be better prepared to succeed. what is more, i do not think you will find a working parent in america who will not appreciate the peace of mind that their child is in a safe, high-quality learning environment every single day. [applause] michele and i remember how tough it can be to find good child care. i remember how expensive it can be, too. the size of your paycheck should not determine your child's future. [applause] let's make sure none of our kids start out already a step behind. let's make it a national priority to give every child
11:21 pm
access to a high-quality, early education. let's give our kids that chance. i do have to warn the parents here who have young kids, they grow up to be 5 foot 10 inches, and even if they are nice to you, they basically do not have a lot of time for you on the weekends. [laughter] they have sleepovers and dates. [laughter] so, all that early investment just leads them to go away. [laughter] now, what i also said on tuesday night is that our commitment to our kids' education has to continue throughout their academic lives. from the time our kids start grade school, we need to equip them with the skills they need in a high-tech economy. we are working to recruit and
11:22 pm
train 100,000 new teachers in the fields of the future, science, technology, engineering, and math, where we are most likely to fall behind. we have got to redesign our high schools so a diploma puts our kids on the path to a good job. [applause] we want to reward schools to develop new partnerships with colleges and employers and create classes that focus on science and technology and engineering and math, all the things that can help our kids fill those jobs that are there right now but also in the future. and, obviously, once our kids graduate from high school, we have got to make sure skyrocketing costs do not price middle-class families out of a higher education. [applause] or saddle them with unsustainable debt. some of the younger teachers who
11:23 pm
are here, they have chosen a career path that is terrific, but you do not go into teaching to get rich. it is very important we make sure they can afford to get a great education. and can choose to be a teacher, can choose to be in a teaching profession. [applause] so, we have worked to make college more affordable for students and families already. tax credits, grants, and loans that go farther than before. but taxpayers cannot keep subsidizing ever escalating price tags for higher education. at some point, you would run out of money. colleges have to do their part. colleges that do not do enough to keep costs in check should get less federal support so we are incentivizing colleges to keep their costs down. yesterday, we released a new
11:24 pm
college scorecard that gives parents and students of the information they need to compare schools by value, and affordability, so they can make the best choice. any interested parent can check it out at [applause] now, in the end, that is what this is all about. giving our kids the best possible shot at life, equipping them with a skilled, and education that the 21st century economy demands. giving them every chance so they can go as far as their hard work and take them. that will strengthen our economy and our country for all of us. because if there generation prospers, if they have got the skills they need to get a good
11:25 pm
job, that means businesses will want to locate here. it also means citizens will have the critical thinking skills they need in order to help guide our democracy. we will all prosper that way. that is what we are fighting for. they will write that next great chapter in the american story and we have got to make sure we are providing that investment. i am proud of every teacher here who has dedicated their lives to make sure those kids get a good start in life. i want to make sure i am helping and that the country is behind you every step of the white. all right? thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. [applause]
11:26 pm
>> >> happy valentine's day. in two weeks, we will have a historic ceremony here in united states capital. house and senate leaders will gather. this will be the first statue of an african-american woman to be placed in the capital, that of rosa parks. i cannot think of a more fitting honor for a great american hero who still inspires us all. on tuesday, the president laid out his agenda. it is one that i largely disagree with trade i think it lacked any new ideas prayed to the millions of americans still asking the question, where are the jobs? it was largely more of the same. more tax hikes, more stimulus spending.
11:27 pm
if he's serious about enacting his agenda, i think it must start with the part of this congress that his party controls, the united states senate. what can he get past in united states senate? -- passed in the united states senate? the president once more stimulus spending. the president wants more tax hikes that destroyed jobs. this is not the agenda that many americans are looking for. and, many in the president's own party will not support those ideas. in the house, we will continue to focus on what the american people's top priorities are, creating jobs and cutting spending. for the last two years, the house has done its work. we have passed legislation to tackle the tough challenges that america faces, only to see our senate colleagues do
11:28 pm
nothing. those days are over. the house will continue to meet our obligations. the senate democrats must begin to do their work. that is why we passed the no budget, no pay act, requiring the senate to pass a budget for the first time in four years. that is why we're going to insist that they finally pass a plan to replace the president's sequester. this sequester was the president's idea, and his party needs to follow through on their plans to replace it. with that, i will answer your questions great >> senate democrats -- questions. >> democrats will reveal their plan. would you rather see the sequester kick in than accept a
11:29 pm
plan that has more tax revenues? >> until they pass a plan, there is no reason for me to comment on what they will do or not do. >> former senator chuck hagel was at risk of being filibustered. do you think it is appropriate for your republican colleagues to filibuster his nomination? >> i will remind you that this is the house side of the capital. we are not involved in the senate nominations. you can ask the senate. >> do you have an opinion about this, your republican colleagues leading the charge? >> mr. boehner, legislation expired at the end of the 112th congress. he if the senate does pass a bill, how will the house handle it? >> we passed a bill twice to
11:30 pm
replace the sequester. our position is clear. i expect the senate to do their work. if they're willing to pass a bill, we will find some way to work with them to address this problem. i have made it perfectly clear, the sequester -- i don't like it. no one should like it. but the sequester is there because the president insisted that it be there. where is the president's plan to replace the sequester that he insisted upon? >> the violence against women act, what is your timeline? >> representatives are
11:31 pm
continuing to work with the committee of jurisdiction, looking at finding ways to deal with this legislation. we are fully committed to doing everything we can to protect women in our society. i expect that the house will act in a timely fashion in some way. no decision has been made about whether we take up the senate bill or move our own version of the bill. there is a partisan talk underway both in the senate and in the house. i have done everything i can to try to encourage those bipartisan conversations. i do not think a decision should be made about who should go first. we are way too down the road. there are a lot of issues that we have to deal with.
11:32 pm
our border is not secure. the ability of her government to enforce the law has its share of problems as well. there are a number of issues that have to be resolved here. let's not get too far down the road. i want my colleagues to continue to work together to see if they can't come to a solution that is except will here in the house. >> you mentioned jobs are it what did you think of the president's proposal to fix it now, put people back to work, repairing the nation's infrastructure? >> i have worked very diligently over the past couple of years to grapple with her infrastructure problems here in america. -- our infrastructure problems here in america. our problems are chiefly those of resources. trying to find a funding source to repair the nation's
11:33 pm
infrastructure is still a big goal of mine. the president talked about infrastructure, but not how to pay for it. it is easy to talk about being santa claus, but at some point somebody has got to pay the bill. i have pushed the new chairman of her house transportation and infrastructure committee -- our transportation and infrastructure committee to work on this issue. i am committed to find a funding source so we can begin to repair america's aging infrastructure. >> you do not like the sequester. if it goes into effect at the end of the month, how do you handle what will in effect be treated by many of your republican members as the new baseline? it seems when a sequester goes into effect, it enormously cop locates your ability to agree with democrats over basic spending bills -- obligates your ability to agree with
11:34 pm
democrats over basic spending bills. will that be the new spending baseline you will operate off of, or will you treat it as temporary? >> the sequester will be in effect until dark cuts and reforms that put us on a path to balance the budget over the next 10 years -- there are cuts and reforms that will put us on a path to balance the budget over the next 10 years. period. >> [inaudible]have you started bipartisan talks on the sequester? >> pure and simple. i told you. >> the president promised he would take executive action on climate change. our house republicans going to
11:35 pm
block him from doing that if the bill does not get past? >> i do not know what actions the president thinks he can take. i do not think he has the ability to impose a national energy tax on americans without the authority of congress. he may attempt to do this. >> what do you think about the plan to include in operations bill? >> there are a lot of options for how we move continuing resolutions. no decisions have been made about how to do that. thank you. >> what did you get mrs. boehner for valentine's day? [laughter]
11:36 pm
>> jefferson keel plans to ask the federal government to exempt--- native american tribes from the sequesters and cuts. >> be sequestered in real terms will affect tribal communities of the widowed at the level. it will affect whether or not a young but woman may or may not be able to access health care for her unborn child. it will access whether or not elderly people will be able to afford medications or afford to go to the doctor. it will affect human lives of the way down to the community level. not just in the washington, d.c.
11:37 pm
and everywhere across the area. is it necessary? tribal leaders, we understand america needs more efficient government. we did not argue that point. we are concerned when you look across the board of the cuts, if you take a percentage, regardless of what is a -- of what it is, it provides for the health care, education, the quality of life that our people are enjoying today. some people are struggling already. it will even worse than that. in my mind, or as tribal leaders have said, i will agree with tribal leaders that have come forward already. we have asked the federal
11:38 pm
government except tribal health care facilities from the sequestered. we will work with our congressional leaders and work with the federal government and our federal partners in every way that we can to make sure we are doing things more efficiently. we cannot afford and those types of services or cuts across the board. we are talking about the poorest of the poor. we are asking once again the federal government to exempt tribal nations from the sequestered cuts. i know that may not sound as simple. in our mind, it is simple. >> in a few moments, house debate on a bill that would extend its freeze on federal worker's pay. in a little more than an hour,
11:39 pm
how departments would be affected by the pending federal budget cuts known as sequestration. british labor party leaders on the plan to rebuild the economy. on in the next "washington journal," we will talk with marsha blackburn. who will also be joined by chris murphy to talk about gun control, and a manufacturing. live on c-span every day at 7:00 eastern. >> we have a habit of glossing over presidents. some people are bald eagles and they all have to be treated as if there are symbols of the country. what that means is you have a
11:40 pm
smoothing over of the rough edges. there is a feeling among the modern presidents that they have a right to a certain federation. that will be located and they've presidential library. there are children in some cases and their former allies, their lieutenants who live along with the presidents because they are younger, they continue this. in many ways, there are more ferocious -- ferociously committed to the legacy. what does the government do because it is responsible when you have a flood president? a >> in the park to, he tells challenges he faces the first federal director of the nixon presidential library and museum periods ended at 8:00 on c-span.
11:41 pm
the house debated a bill thursday that would extend a pay freeze for federal workers including members of congress through december 31. president obama would like to increase federal pay by half of a percent next month. it included another bill that would condemn north korea all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: house resolution 66, the rule we are considering today, will allow for debate on the underlying bill, h.r. 273. this rule that we're considering today is a little bit unusual in that it not only allows for the underlying resolution but it also take cares of some housekeeping business that we have here on the floor of the house. for example, all of america, madam speaker, has read of the nuclear tests that -- test that happened in north korea and this resolution allows us to consider
11:42 pm
tomorrow a bill under suspension of the rules to condemn that activity in north korea. it's very important business that we are able to take care of here in the house. we would not be able to take care of it but for this rule. i'm glad we considered that here in the rule. in this underlying bill, madam speaker, we're continuing what the president himself continued through mar of this year, we are -- through march of this year, we are continuing through the end of the calendar year, that's a freeze on the automatic increases in federal employee pay. again, i brought down a copy of the resolution, that small, front and back bill, and so often you see findings in these bills, madam speaker. you see findings about what the congress believes and why this bill is coming to the floor and i promise you, madam speaker, if you read this resolution, and
11:43 pm
again it's only a page and a half long so it will be easy to do, you will not find one finding of contempt for federal employees. in fact if you listened to the hearing in the rules committee last night, what you saw was universal praise for the hard work that our men and women in the civil service are doing for this country. weave lot of work that has to be done. i know it's a popular sport in some districts to kick federal employees, federal employees by and large work hard, though i'm happy to say, you can distinguish, for example, the love and affection that so many of our constituents -- constituencies have for men and women in uniform you see those pay raise bills move through very quickly, versus the suspicion you have from time to time from folks who said, i was just down at xyz federal office, i didn't get great service, i was on the phone, trying to get rulls from xyz agency, they kept
11:44 pm
me on hold for three half-hours, what are my tack dollars paying for? we owe it better -- we owe better to our federal employees than to put them in that circumstance. gradually, not nearly fast enough, but gramulely, our federal employee system is moving forward reck is -- recognizing hardworking, successful, dedicated employees through merit pay. merit increases. through bonuses. through bumps. ways to say, you know what, service matters. service matters. and a one size fits all pay scale does not work across the federal system. i'm very proud, madam speaker, i've been appointed to the oversight and government reform committee in whose jurisdiction this bill is. i hope we're going to be able to take up those shrns and build on that progress that has been made. but in all the conversation you'll hear on this floor, i
11:45 pm
won't say rhetoric because i know people's hearts are in this issue, in all the debate you'll hear on this house floor, what you -- what you will not hear is that one dollar is being cut from those merit bonuses. what you will not hear is that one dollar is being removed from agencies to have an opportunity to say, you know what, job well done, you deserve a bonus. what you will not hear is that one dollar is being taken that would have gone to recognize performance above and beyond in the service of our citizenry. what you will hear is that in line with the recommendations of the much-discussed simpson-bowles commission that a three-year frieze on federal automatic salary increases will be continued.
11:46 pm
upheld. went into effect for two years and three months and it will continue through the end of the year system of often i hear, madam speaker, i just want my constituents to -- my constituents say, i want to make sure congress is abide big the same rules you ask everybody else to abide by. i want to make that clear. that's what my friend from colorado was discussing. it's not a provision in this bill, it's extra, it's a function of law, members of congress' pay will absolutely be frozen for just as long. just as long. same rules apply to everybody. apply to the vice president, mr. speaker, apply to the executive branch, apply to folks back home in georgia, aply across the board to federal employees and apply to everybody here in this chamber. we had one of the longest and i would argue most intensive hearings of our rules committee cycle last night, mr. speaker. where we explored this bill line
11:47 pm
by line, detail by detail. i was pleased to be part of that debate. i'm glad we had an opportunity, really unlimited time, with which to do that. but i believe we crafted a good rule, mr. speaker. that will allow for thorough debate of this underlying bill. again, i would remind you, mr. speaker, and all members, this bill posted on the house rules committee website, front and back of a sheet of paper, it's simple, direct, for everyone in this house to be able to read, everyone back home to be able to read so we can have a thorough debate on this bill this afternoon. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: i thank my good friend from georgia for yielding the customary 30 minutes to me. i rise obviously in opposition to the rule for consideration of h.r. 273 to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for
11:48 pm
federal employees. i just heart many -- heard my colleague from depea say this is a good rule. but i've also heard him say what i afree with very frequently, and that is that this body should proceed toward regular order, allow the committee process to go forward in a meaningful way, to have hearings, and to let the will of the body be worked here in the people's house. i've also heard him talk about closed rules and it's for that reason that i believe that this process is not a good process, because it is a closed rule and it couldn't new york that sense, be good. there were no hearings. he talks about this one week, one bill. why this week for federal employees? last night i talked with six
11:49 pm
members of the american federation of government employees. some of them older, some of them younger. and all of them agonizing as a federal -- as are federal employees around the country. let me get to the point. the republicans have decided that they want to continue in the same shortsighted and counterproductive campaign against federal employees that we saw in the last congress. when they introduced this very same bill in the 112th congress -- this same bill. in the 112th congress it passed the house and went nowhere, accomplished absolutely nothing. i'm quite certain, and i'll bet, it will face the same fate this time around. just last week, the rules committee considered h.r. 444, the require a plan act. which should have been called
11:50 pm
the republicans have no plan act. instofede offering real solutions to the challenges facing our nation, my republican colleagues continue to introduce do nothing legislation that will do nothing to help the american people. obviously all of us know we face an $ 5 billion sequester -- an $85 billion sequestration cuts in a matter of weeks, these cuts were intended to be a failsafe. they were supposed to be so unpalatable so horrible, for everyone, that congress would never -- would never allow them to go into effect. . instead of making sure these massive cuts don't threaten the progress we have made, my friends on the other side would rather play politics at the expense of the middle class and the working poor. underscore working poor.
11:51 pm
the president put it in his state of the union address, and i quote him, arbitrary deficit reduction is not an economic plan. deficit reduction is a means to an end not an end in an of itself. it is just one tool that will will help us get our country back on the right track. you can't build a house with just a saw. deficit reduction needs to be part of a comprehensive economic plan, one that will stimulate growth and create jobs. a serious economic plan is one that does not take potshots at our economy and our nation's full faith and credit for political purposes. we must in this people's house move beyond politics and work to avoid a dangerous back slide in
11:52 pm
our nation's economic recovery. for the life of me i can't even begin to understand why house republicans continue to pick on federal employees. i mean it's as if the people that keep the capitol clean, the police officer that keep us -- officers that keep us safe, the countless people that work right here on this capitol complex do not deserve this paltry raise to be picked on. they have already contributed. federal employees, that's what my friends were saying to me last night, $103 billion tornadoes deficit reduction -- towards deficit reduction. furthermore, federal employees and retirees have contributed $15 billion in savings over 10 years through an increased pension contribution. two-year federal pay freeze has been in effect since 2011. and will produce an additional $60 billion in savings. the reduction and delay of a
11:53 pm
$213 -- 2013 pay increase, included in the current continuing resolution, will yield $28 billion in savings. at what point does enough, as my friend from virginia said, become enough? what's more and puzzles me, and i asked the question of the contributor of this bill last evening is why are federal contractors who make twice as much as federal employees included in this pay freeze? she gave me some political fogging, i don't know what it was. and don't care to even bother to try to remember. during the debate over the fiscal cliff, republicans said that we shouldn't asked for -- ask for the wealthiest in our society to pay their fair share. and the reason it was put, this was a while back during the debate on the fiscal cliff, was if we don't -- tax the wealthy,
11:54 pm
they won't work as hard. if they are taking home less money. what about federal employees? and why is it that that logic does not apply here? it's incomprehensible that we find ourselves in this position. mr. speaker, if the federal government is not paying realistic salaries, than we can't expect to be able to provide for people to allow for themselves and their families to have a decent living. mr. speaker, the fact of the matter is that the federal work force is smaller now than it was in 1988, an historic low compared to the size of the national population. there are fewer federal workers now than at any time during president reagan's
11:55 pm
administration. something has got to give. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself 90 seconds to say to my friend always appreciate the eloquence of his words. my only saving grace, mr. speaker, is that the facts are on my side. if the world was as the gentleman from florida had described it, i would probably be where the gentleman from florida is in terms of position, but that's not the case. every dollar we spend in this town, mr. speaker, has consequences. and the $12 billion, $11 billion we are talking about in this bill is not money that's being cut from the federal budget. it's money that's not being given as an automatic inflater to every federal salary in the land, and instead it remains available to those agencies to perform the services that they were created to perform.
11:56 pm
let me be clear, mr. speaker, that means for every dollar that's not going into a clerk's pocket at the veterans affairs administration, that's a dollar that's going to go to implement veterans affairs services. for every dollar that's not going to be an automatic pay increase in my hometown at the c.d.c. is going to go for critical research and infrastructure there to perform the very important role the c.d.c. was created to perform. we have to make choices, mr. speaker. going the greece and pay cuts. google greece and pension cuts. in fact, don't just use google, use yahoo!, binge, anything you like. you will will see where we are headed when you refuse to make the tough decision that is my friends from are refusing to make with respect to the federal budget, you know where those cuts are going to fall. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to one of
11:57 pm
our very distinguished freshmen members, the gentleman from texas, mr. williams. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. williams: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand here in support of h.r. 273, a commonsense bill to overturn president obama's recent executive order that authorizes a five point percent pay raise for workers. with the looming threat of sequestration weeks away, federal agencies should be focused on how to do more with less, like every other business does in america, and other family does in america. but the president's orders would cost taxpayers more than $10 billion over 10 years. here are the facts. in the last decade the average federal civilian salary has increased by 62%. when you factor in benefits, total compensation packages for federal employees, it tops $126,000 compared to less than $63,000 in the private sector. i haven't heard the other side saying anything about that. i'm a business owner.
11:58 pm
i have been in business for 42 years. still own a business and hope to stay in business. when i pay-per-view raises to my employees -- pay pay raises to my employees it's because of their loyalty and hard work not because they are on payroll. my constituents in the 25th district of texas are fed up with the government's borrows and grows too much. let's protect hard-earned taxpayer collars and pass this secretary of defense solution, h.r. 273. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i would advise the gentleman, i was a businessperson, too. and there is a distinction between private businesses and civil servants of the federal government. i'm pleased at this time to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman and my good friend from massachusetts on the rules committee, mr. mcgovern.
11:59 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me. first of all, mr. speaker, let me urge my colleagues that democrats and republicans alike to vote against this closed rule. this is a closed rule. where the entire process has been shut down. the committee's of jurisdiction held no hearings. there was no markup. came to the rules committee, what did the rules committee do? they shut it down. they shut out all possibilities for democrats or republicans to offer amendments. my friend from georgia is proud to defend this closed, iron fist policy, but i think it's wrong, especially on a bill like this. number one. number two, this is a rotten thing to do to federal employees. it really is. i mean these are hardworking men and women, these are people who work at n.i.h. who try to find cures to diseases that by the way will not only improve the quality of life for our people but save money. save money. this is about denyingp a pay
12:00 am
increase to d.e.a. agents on the borders, to the c.i.a. agents who track down osama bin laden. this is a rotten, rotten thing to do. for what? to score some political -- >> this is a rotten thing to do. we are not reducing the deficit at all. we need to save at the american taxpayers' money -- the bottom line is, this is a cheap political stunt. the victims here are working people. none of them should be surprised, because this is the republican signature issue -- ago after working people. want to balance the budget? punish working people. want to find this or that? ago after working people. enough. enough of this war against our working families. mr. speaker, what is frustrating is that here we are debating a bill that is really going
12:01 am
nowhere, that is about a press release. my republicans will go on vacation tomorrow. it will not be back for a week. and we will have four legislative days left to deal with sequestration. on march 4, all of these across- the-board cuts will go into play. guess what? we will lose 750,000 jobs. that is not my estimate. that is what the head of omb said. 750,000 americans unemployed because of their inaction. guess what? what will they do? there will go on unemployment. they will go without work. it will slow down economic growth. give me a break. there should be some urgency. my republican friends, instead of bringing this to the floor, you ought to be finding ways to avoid this fiscal sequestration cliff that we are about to go over. when my talk -- when my friends talk about the deficit and debt -- they do not talk about unpaid
12:02 am
for war costs, all the money going to baghdad or cobble -- instead, they have fights on the floor and whether to provide emergency aid to the victims of hurricane sandy in our own country. only about 48 of our republican colleagues voted for that. we should be trying to put the american people first. >> the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> what we should be talking about is jobs, jobs, jobs. that is how we get this economy going. that is how we reduce our deficit. that is how we reduce our debt. instead, you're punishing american workers. this is shameful. we should be spending our time doing something that will benefit this economy and this economic recovery. this is not it. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this closed rule. i urge the leadership, get serious about avoiding sequestration. it is not good for our country. >> the gentleman yields.
12:03 am
the gentleman from florida reserves his time. >> thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself a four minutes to talk about cheap political stunts. i see a few cheap political stunts down here from time to time. i do not want to characterize anybody's behavior in that way. that is not appropriate. if we go to the top of the scare -- the scale, a senior person, making $84,000 a year, this 1/21% increase that president did by executive order -- one half of one% increase that the president did by the executive order, that will give one person at $2,000 for that family to use over the next year. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will yield if the gentleman answers this question. you see $10,793. that is the additional burden
12:04 am
that the gentleman, when he controlled the congress for two years with the president, added to this working families burdened. when you come to the house florida and profess your affection for the working people in my district, the working people in my district, and you say you expressed that the faction -- that affection by insuring this year one half of one% of their pay will go up, well, $10,000 for that worker, $10,000 for that worker's wife, $10,000 or that workers oldest, metal, and youngest child, for a family of five in my district, the gentleman added $50,000 in debt and deficit that has to be repaid. i know the gentleman was using his heart when he passed the
12:05 am
programs that did this. i do not question his motivation -- his motivations. i take offense that the gentleman questions my motivation in shifting to thousand dollars from workers' salaries into programs for veterans, for research, for health, that he questions my commitment to working class people, when while he did this. he voted yes after yes. >> i take offense that the gentleman's party is about to take out 750,000 jobs in this economy. we should be talking about avoiding sequestration, instead, we're talking about a lie off more american workers. >> i welcome my friend to the sequestration debate, the one we try to have in last may. here we are, mr. speaker, at 12:30 on the night of
12:06 am
sequestration day saying, hey, let's do it, folks, let's do it. let's do it with the bill we passed in august to stop the fiscal cliff. let's start with the one we passed in september. let's do with the one we passed in december. mr. speaker, there is not a person in this body i do not want to work with to solve these problems. there's not one. not one. when we do it here at the 11th hour and say gallate, i wish folks gotten through earlier, mr. speaker, we have been trying to get through with it -- to get serious about it for 80 months. the president passed the law that put the sequestration into law. the joint committee failed. why are we having -- why are we not planning for this 13 months ago?
12:07 am
with that, i reserve the balance of my time. >> of the gentleman from georgia -- from georgia reserve system. the gentleman from -- from florida is recognized. >> i would ask my good friend from georgia question -- if we are all leaving here for a week, why don't we just hear -- stay here and get this done, rather than go on vacation? >> will the gentleman yield? i asked that question to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the minority whip. >> he does not control the house. >> if the gentleman would continue to yield -- i ask, what would it take to get that joint select committee to succeed? that is why we are here biggert -- here. he said, he did not know what more we could have done to find agreement then, and i say to the gentleman, those same challenges the minority whip observed last night that were preventing
12:08 am
agreement than are the same challenges that are preventing us, whether we work until midnight tonight or not, from sullivan and today. i would be happy to stay with the gentleman just as long as there is work to be done. >> one thing is absolutely certain -- the majority whip controls the floor, and the speaker controls the house. if they chose for us to stay here, we could stay here. with that, i am pleased to yield five minutes to my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman from new york, who is my ranking member on the rules committee. >> the gentle lady from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker and everybody who is listening, what you have heard by now his they want sequestration. the local papers reprint on capitol hill today say they want sequestration. the excuse they are giving is that they will wait and see what
12:09 am
the senate will do. the one not take any action here. we will be bystanders until this week -- until we find out what sequestration. over 700,000 workers will lose their jobs. a lot of economists tell us this could be worse than the great depression, but they are willing to do it. they want to fight this president. i think that moves -- that means a lot more to them and doing their job. we have heard before -- we have only 6 legislative days -- when we come back from a week's vacation, to have these cuts that will have a devastating impact on our economy and the well being of every american citizen, i urge the ceos of america -- they are worried, they said so for months and months, that they were concerned about the prospect of sequestration -- to talk to their members here and get them to change their minds, if they can. this is dire.
12:10 am
we're not kidding around. this is serious business. we are literally facing a fiscal cliff. the solution to this -- this is a man-made crisis -- it take a swing at their favorite punching bag and hold hostage again the people who make their living serving all of us. last night was the first time i really heard that what we are doing is not going to say anything. federal employes have are given a salary givebacks, over $100 billion in the next 10 years. that should be enough to sacrifice. but no, we're going to do more. we're not going to use it to reduce the deficit. this will be made available to agencies. there's a lot of alice in wonderland cents in the congress these days -- alice, one of the things i like about her most, she is a strange girl, but she said she practice as hard to try
12:11 am
to believe six impossible things before breakfast. i am trying to put this in the same category. it simply is impossible for me to believe that we gain anything in the world by taking away the salaries and in come of hard- working government employees to put back in agencies. frankly, if eni you can understand that, i appreciate if you let me know. we had a chance -- two chances -- to do with the sequester. also, to cut the deficit with a sensible solution. mr. van hollen, who is the ranking member of the budget committee, who deserves our respect, was not allowed -- the rules committee and now runs the house. there is no committee action on any of these bills. there's no chance republicans and democrats on the committee,
12:12 am
which we followed for generations and hundreds of years, the possibility for them to discuss it. mr. van hollen, his sensible solution, which really does make sense, was simply not allowed to be put on the floor so that we could discuss it and give people a vote. a bipartisan group of the members of the house do not want this bill passed -- i want to ask unanimous consent to put a letter in from one of the more thoughtful members and a friend, representative will ask from virginia, and what he said what he thinks this is about. already, cuts totaling $1.50 trillion have been made to the direct discretionary spending, and as a result, because of the layoffs of employees, our
12:13 am
economy experienced an unexpected economic contraction in the final quarter of 2012, which we should pay heed to. sequestration will compound -- compound our economic troubles further. universities say sequestration could lose 2.4 million employees -- important federal programs would be crippled because of these irresponsible cuts. eni to mention a few of them again. faa, they would experience a great cutback. the people who do drug interdictions along the border, and keep our border states, they would have a severe -- a severe cutback. it would mean that vital research would be slowed. as a scientist, let me assure you that research cannot be turned off and on like a faucet. it is necessary for us to maintain the research with dollars, because as it has been pointed out, once to keep the
12:14 am
population healthy -- >> and the gentle lady have an additional one minute? >> thank you, mr. speaker. how important is that forest not only for -- for our economic well being but for the benefit of our citizens. i cannot imagine anybody in the senate will contemplate bringing this up. all of this is wasted time, as we do hear some times. i urge my colleagues on both sides, though it no. give us a chance to let mr. van hollen bring his bill to the floor. or from the republican side. i do not care. we have to stop sequestration. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentle lady yells back time. the gentleman from florida. -- yields back time. the gentleman from florida. >> she asked unanimous consent to include a letter -- the
12:15 am
speaker did not rule on that. >> without objection, it will be so ordered. the gentleman from georgia? >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is my great pleasure to yield two minutes to a good friend here, mr. wittman. >> the gentleman from -- from virginia is recognized for two minutes. >> today i rise in opposition to this bill. i am proud to represent thousands of hard-working civilian employees who serve this nation on a daily basis. the fight crime for the fbi, rick out terrorism with the cia, and provide a vital support to the members of our military. there are scientists, engineers, air traffic controllers' pursuing excellence each day to cure disease, protect our travelers, and shore up our infrastructure. their doctors and nurses at va hospitals. they are border patrol agents
12:16 am
protecting our homeland from those who wish to do us harm. above all, they're patriots who believe in serving their nation. as congress charges these hard- working americans with their duties. this congress asks them to perform his duties to the very best of their abilities. it is only corporate that their service to recognized and applauded, rather than consistently used as a tool in the game of politics. i do not think members of congress should receive a pay increase. i have continually supported increased to reduce our pay and cut our legislative budget. this bill is not about members of congress. this is about our federal civilian work force, which has been under pay freeze for the last two years. this legislation will continue that a freeze drought the end of this year. for these citizens, life is about public service and commitment, commitment to the people of this nation and the ideals and dreams set forth by
12:17 am
our founding fathers. today, i ask my colleagues, do you want an efficient, responsible united states in america? do plan to ask any less of our federal work force? it seems to me that we are only asking them to do more for this nation with less, without standing by them in these challenging times. we must stop continuing -- continually targeting our federal employees. i urge you to vote no. >> the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> would you be kind enough to tell us how much time remains for both of us? >> the gentleman from florida has 13 minutes. the gentleman from florida -- from georgia has 16 1/2 minutes. >> i am pleased to yield two minutes to a new member of the house of representatives that i
12:18 am
know to the -- to be very thoughtful from california, mr. barrel -- mr. barro. >> yesterday, i introduced an amendment that would have separated the pay raise for members of congress from the remainder of federal employees. if that amendment had passed, only members of congress would be affected by this. unfortunately, the rules committee reported a closed rule, and will not allow an up or down vote on any amendments. they would not allow us to vote up and down on this. this does not allow congress to take a clean vote on a cost-of- living adjustment for federal employees. congress needs to start working together in a bipartisan manner and start addressing issues like sequestration and the budget. we need to start making
12:19 am
strategic budget decisions, not across-the-board cuts. that is not how you make decisions. we need to eliminate and reduce programs that are no longer effective and begin to bring our budget under control. we cannot act responsibly and find a way to achieve this -- we do not deserve a pay raise. the amendment i proposed would have reiterated that. not allowing a clean vote is just wrong. we should not balance the federal budget on the backs of our federal employees. my amendment would have allowed us to take that vote. sacramento county, my home county, has over 26,000 federal employees. these are hard-working citizens in the defense department, many of them are veterans who have served our country admirably, and there are other dedicated public servants keeping our country safe. we should not ask them to make sacrifices without asking
12:20 am
ourselves to make the sacrifice a first. now was a time to set aside the partisanship and start working together to serve our country. however, achieving fiscal balance on the backs of our hard-working federal employees is not a solution. i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, to represent our hard-working employees and maintain a responsible budget. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i yield myself to, nats. -- two minutes. my colleague from california gave an informative presentation to the rules committee last night. i am in favor of open rules. i would say to my freshman friend, even if we made an open rule controlling for this bill, the gentleman's amendment still would not have been made in order.
12:21 am
it would then ruled by the parliamentarians out of order, as non-germane to the underlying bill. >> will yield? >> we have -- we could have waived his terminus -- his germaneness. >> he is absolutely right. my advice to my freshman colleague, in this case, it is not an open rule he is after. as his colleagues on the rules committee working their magic to waive the rules. it would have taken a wave of the house rules to allow the amendment. he made passionate case. i know his heart is in this issue. mr. speaker, i want to be clear about what this bill is and what it isn't. what it isn't is a pay freeze for federal employees. in fact, what has been the law of the land for the last two years has not been a pay freeze -- all the increases with
12:22 am
longevity have taken place. all the increases with promotions have taken place. all the increases with meritorious pay and bonuses and all of those activities have still been going on. what this is, however, is a nine-month suspension of the automatic, across-the-board, 0.5% increase that the president, directed by executives -- that the president directed by executive order in december. that is all this bill is. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from florida? >> i am pleased to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. >> mr. speaker, we need a balanced approach to reducing our deficit. we need to make responsible cuts, while also raising revenue. this bill is not the way to do
12:23 am
it. i have great respect for the gentleman's intellect. this is one of the dumbest bills i have ever seen come to this floor. let's take a look at it, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to this rule. as part of the fiscal cliff deal, we promised federal employees that they would see their first pay raise in over two years on march 27. this is a modest pay adjustment. 0.5% -- when you say $10 billion, we're talking about $1 billion a year. now, a little before a month before the increase would take effect, this bill would break that promise. do you think, americana, that this is going to solve the fiscal problems that the
12:24 am
congress and presidents created? my home state of new jersey suffered a devastating blow from sandy this past fall, as did other states. the army corps of engineers and other agencies were on the ground immediately. how dare you ask this pejorative question, what if we took a dollar from the clerk and provided it to our armed forces? what kind of negotiation is that? what are we doing? we're doing the same thing with our own staffs. these are the very people sitting alongside us and behind us, which is not germane to this legislation, but we are doing the same thing. they have not had to raise in two years. these are human being is too.
12:25 am
they are not numbers. -- beings too. they are not numbers. they walk the streets, navigating through flood, debris, downed power lines, these fema folks, these army corps. they're not nameless. they're not faceless bureaucrats. these are heroes that continue to contribute each and every day to our ongoing rebuilding. darn it, we allow this to happen five or six years ago when we laid off thousands of police officers and firefighters and teachers, and we called it saving the country. federal workers are also law enforcement officers and firefighters. they put their lives on the line for us every day. they work for the defense department. they protect us in our times of need.
12:26 am
we need to be there for them. they have done their part. i am tired of us using federal, state, local, county employees as the scapegoats for our ineptness. maybe it is the politically correct thing to do to capitulate and join the forces and cut everybody. that is what we should do? i do not think so. i will debate to any time. thank you, mr. speaker. >> the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from georgia -- from georgia is recognized. >> i yield myself three minutes to say to the gentleman -- he heard it from a gentleman of virginia, the respect for federal employees and the job they do, it is not a question that is being debated today. the admiration that i have for folks at the cdc in my neck of
12:27 am
the woods, the support led by the speaker of the house from my state, speaker gingrich, to double the nih budget -- i want to show you what my constituents also see in their tough times, because it is -- because it is not just the clerk at the da -- the va who hasn't gotten a raise. i talked to a clerk in my furniture store, a single mom, she had not gone a raise in two years. she makes $11 an hour. average, median federal wage, 74 -- $74 an hour. this is a cdo chart that compares the work of folks with
12:28 am
high school degrees, with a little bit of college, with a college degree, in the private sector, without the public sector. i say to the gentleman, in no way to want to minimize the tremendous responsibility placed on our federal civilian workers. i have chosen a career of public service, as have they, and i am -- and i admire them for it. i know they do it with great sacrifice to themselves and their families. in this tough time, until we can get our handle on the debt and deficit, my constituents continue to look at how their tax dollars a. -- dollars appeared to be paying federal employs more than my folks are being paid back home. i wish my folks were not categorize what is going on here
12:29 am
as some disrespectful act towards federal employees and could recognize it as a balancing of salaries and benefits that our own congressional budget office has suggested is actually an inequity that exists today. >> i would not use the words that you used. i would use the word meaning. we have demeaned our staff, which are not included in this -- i understand that. do you want to know something? those unemployment figures for the past six years would be so different if we had not laid off those very same federal employees who you are now deciding that 0.5% betaken away from them at this particular point in time. this crazy idea, that to give the money to the agency to do with it that it wishes -- i do
12:30 am
not think he meant that at all. >> you reserve? the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. >> i am pleased to yield two minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from texas, mrs. jackson lee. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. -- gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. i thank my good friend on the rules committee who is the manager of this particular rule. in essence, bringing the still to the floor of the house -- your the discourse about this, because many times, this discourse and debate becomes confusing, because we are trying to compare apples and oranges. let me first on up to the fact
12:31 am
that a congressional pay freeze is already in effect -- in place. our salaries have been frozen. when it expires, we will rise to the location and freeze it again. we are elected by the people, and those decisions can be made on behalf of the people. we're not talking about congressional salaries today. they are in place. they exist. what we're talking about is the ice officer and it -- i need with in the rayburn building, who works every day to protect his country -. federal employes a party given up enough to help the deficit, custom and border protection, dea officers, fbi, health and human services, centers for disease control positions,
12:32 am
research at nih, all of those persons working for the greater good, those who had to address in the west nile virus, the men and boys who are on the ground with hurricane sandy right now -- i have no question that there are private sector employees or working with this. let me tell you what the issue is. let's stop fooling around and address the question of sequester. protect those that need a seat -- a social safety net in medicare. realize that if use dice and cut and slash under the sequester, that will be the issue. none of these amendments were allowed. >> she is recognized for one minute. >> last night in the rear air -- last night in the rules committee, there were amendments
12:33 am
that could have waived this. we waive. you're in. that could ban on the floor of the house. my amendment said that we should take a pause. i said the bill should not be brought. i struck the entire language of the bill so we could get to the point of providing a debate on the sequester to make sure that the american people's voices are heard. they do not want across-the- board cuts when you begin to cut resources they need. we can do better. it should be clear that our federal employees -- in texas, there are 251,000 federal employees. california, over four hundred thousand. these are not folks in the beltway. these are the ones that are -- that are in the nation's national forests, on the border, in hospitals, dealing with drugs -- drug cartels -- i can assure
12:34 am
you that this is not what we should be doing today. this is unfair to our federal workers. i will not stand for it. >> the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from georgia. >> i yield myself to, nats. i just want to read from the simpson-bowles commission report. i want to read from it, not because of support everything the simpson-bowles commission had to say -- i want to read from it not because this is a bill but has been introduced and passed on the floor of the house -- i want to read from it because it was put together by the president to be a thoughtful, non-partisan, deliberative body that would try to find those things in the federal government that should change to write the fiscal ship that is the united states of america. this is what that group,
12:35 am
appointed by president obama, republicans and democrats, thoughtful, deliberative body, and had to say. "out of duty and patriotism, hard-working federal employes provide a great service to this country, but in a time of budget shortfalls, all levels of government must trim back. in the recent recessions, milk -- millions of private sector and state and municipal employees had their wages frozen or cut back, and millions more lost their jobs altogether. in contrast, federal workers' wages increase annually due to automatic formulas in log, -- in law. this proposal would institute a three-year government-wide freeze in every government agency, including the department of defense civilian work force. this proposal will sell -- will save $20 billion in 2015.
12:36 am
the president implemented the first two years of this proposal. perhaps there was consultation with somebody in the spotty. it was not me. i served on the government and oversight committee. the president decided he was not going to extend it a third year. he decided he was going to give a 0.5% pay raise. these are issues that can be debated, but what they cannot be is demonized as pejorative. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. this is important. this is not republican or democrat idea. this is not something that was created in the minds of folks who hate the federal government. it is idea that came directly from the commission appointed by president obama to solve the exactly the kinds of fiscal problems that we are facing today. like it, don't like it, but
12:37 am
don't say -- don't say that it is something that it is not. this is an idea from the president's fiscal commission. we're bringing it to the floor today. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i would urge and the large my colleague from georgia that i have no further speakers, and i am prepared to close. >> the gentleman from georgia. >> i have no further speakers. >> i yield myself such time as it remains. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i really like and have great affection for my friend from georgia. and understand exactly what he just did with reference to the president's commission by senator simpson and erskine bowles. the fount of wisdom in reference
12:38 am
with what is required for this nation to write its ship does not emanate from just any one commission, and while this particular proposal may be listed as an idea from the simpson-bowles commission, i would urge my friend from georgia to read the whole thing, which does contemplate shared sacrifice. that is what i have tried to get across to my colleagues here in this institution, as a person who lived as a child during the second world war. i saw what sacrifice meant. i saw the people that did the sacrificing. they did it together, different than us today, and that is why i think is wrong to cherry pick and use a sledgehammer against federal employees for something that is not likely to become the law of the land. it is a waste of time.
12:39 am
the only good thing i have to say about the bill before us today is that it has zero chance of becoming law. i anxiously await for my friends on the other side, particularly the leadership, to actually start considering legislation that will help, not hurt, the american people. mr. speaker, we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment which would allow the house to vote on a replacement to the entire sequester for 2013, with savings from specific policies that reflect a balanced approach to reducing our national debt. there are only 6 legislative days left until the sequester hits. now is the time to act. smart government is not about sequesters.
12:40 am
it is about solutions. it is time to work together for the american people. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the camp -- in the text of my amendment and the record, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the role, and i yield back the balance of my time with the final thought -- we do not have much time to waste, and we are wasting the american people's time. >> the gentleman from florida yields back the remainder of the time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the gentleman believes we're wasting the american people's time and equally precious
12:41 am
commodity is the american people's money. i talked earlier about the $10,000 per american in habitant. a lot of people do their numbers by american tax paying -- texting families. a lot of people do numbers by per child or adult. i did not want to game the system like that. mr. speaker, $52,381 -- you take today's $16.50 trillion debt that the mayor -- that the american people have, and/every single human being that the census has in america at january of 2013, you'll find that we have borrowed and spent $52,000.300 $81 -- $52,381 for
12:42 am
every human being in america. i do not minimize the burden that will be a family of four in my district when they do not receive that sur 0.5% increase in their pay at the president tried to do by executive order. i do not minimize at all. it is minimal compared to the $52,000, for each member of that family of four -- that is your 0.5% pay raise is minimal compared to the $208,000 that that family owes as its share of the family -- of the federal debt. the gentleman from florida made a passionate presentation last night. i believe he is absolutely right. he referenced our ranking members, the only two members who know anything about sacrifice.
12:43 am
i was one of those kids who loved being in the attic. you could always find neat stuff. i have all the stamps, sugar, rubber -- i do not know what that is like. i do not know what it is like for a nation to come together with such as -- with a sense of purpose saying, we will have posters on the wall that say, loose lips sink ships. we are going to come together and make that happen. in fact, the last time this country had the kind of debt as a percentage of size of its economy that it has today was when we were coming out of world war ii pope. -- war !! > -- war ii.
12:44 am
we were using steel to put together collins at that time. in that time of crisis, when we thought, the freedom of the world is on the line, we borrowed the largest amount of money ever borrowed in the history of this country to win world war ii. as we stand here today, we have borrowed trillion's more in actual dollars, but that same gargantuan number of 100% the size of our economy, and for what? what does that leave us when the next crisis comes? i promise you it will. the next crisis will come, and the tools that we have to address it will have been eroded by the policies of today. i take no pleasure in being down
12:45 am
here today, a managing our rule that will extend into year three of federal employee pay freeze. idol folks in my -- i told folks in my home, i want us all to be so successful that we can go back, and tell folks, we deserve this to raise. with $16.40 trillion in debt, four years of no budget at all coming out of this town. $1 trillion annual deficits, we don't. do you think the pain of a three-year pay freeze is bad, mr. speaker, google greece. bing greece. do your yahoo! search on greece.
12:46 am
not 0.5% decreases. double-digit cuts to pensions that seniors are relying on. double-digit cuts to salaries, layoffs, double digits. it does not get better on its own. we have to do it. my friend from florida is so right. we have to come together to solve the bigger problems. this is not the bigger problem. at best, this is a symptom of the problem. at worst, this is something we're trying to do to manage through. in this body, mr. speaker, we have put six of our best minds from the house -- we locked them in a room for about three months. we said, do anything you want with the federal budget. during your biggest dreams.
12:47 am
come up with your best ideas. get outside the box. we're going to close the doors to you can have that conversation with the utmost candor. republicans and democrats, house members and senate members alike. having looked at hundreds of trillions of dollars in federal spending, they found they could agree and not even $1. not $1 in changes. mr. speaker, as you well know, and as fresh the numbers are going to learn, we only control one-third of the budget. just one-third of the budget -- that discretionary spending. that is where federal employee salaries are. everything we do to try to get handel and $52,000 in debt per man, woman, and child in
12:48 am
america, everything we do to try to get our fiscal ship sailing street once again is coming from that -- street once again is coming from that one-third -- straight once again is coming from that one-third. we have to get the two-thirds that can only get to the table when the house and senate and president all agree. >> i just want to say -- ameritech increase -- america ain't greece. it ain't going to be greece. >> i say to my friend, i fear that it is a thinking like that that will take us exactly there. mr. speaker, again, i take no
12:49 am
pleasure in this freeze today. i believe in shared sacrifice across this country to solve our problems. the only thing that would be permissible in this legislation would be to ensure members of congress and employees are both present together, as is insured in this legislation. i urge my colleagues to support this role, bring this bill to the floor, support this underlying resolution, and remember, until $52,381 per man, woman, and child in this country reads zero, we are going to have these discussions again and again and again. mr. speaker, i am told the president is planning to produce a budget. it may come next month. in the two years i have been
12:50 am
here as a member of congress, the president's budgets never ever ever pay down one penny of this debt. we are complicitous in this, mr. speaker. together, we can get ourselves out of this. >> joining us from capitol hill, why are house republicans eager to pass a bill that would freeze federal employee pay for another year? >> republicans are eager to pass this bill as more of a gesture, another way to show that they are leaders in the campaign to cut spending. they are leading by example. as it were, the pay freeze bill not only return -- overturns a a december 2012 executive order that would end a current pay freeze that has gone on for two years and bump these salaries
12:51 am
up 0.5 at% -- in this bill, it also includes a moratorium for members of congress themselves. >> , 22 they estimate that this bill would save -- how much money do they estimate that this bill would save? >> $11 billion over 10 years. >> what did the president's executive order say? >> the federal workforce has been under a two year pay freeze. in 2010, congress passed a bill that would put that moratorium in place. republicans, since last year, have tried to extend that measure. it was never taken up by the senate. they want to try again, especially in light of the sequester, where they feel, we cannot afford to -- to be spending any more money when we are already taking cuts, assuming we cannot -- the
12:52 am
congress cannot find a solution for these looming cuts. >> it seems to the white house is trying to beat the republicans to the punch by issuing that order in december. >> exactly. i should say that what the white house was trying to do, from their perspective, the federal government has already been punished and off over the past two years, shouldering the burden of deficit reduction. the obama administration deemed it appropriate to give them a small increase, in order to make the government more attractive for recruitment, retention, as a thanks for the hard, tireless work. >> who are the primary opponents in the house? >> democrats are mostly united in saying we should not be asking federal workers to
12:53 am
shoulder more of this burden. the tough thing about this bill is that it is paired with a moratorium on a salary increases for members of congress themselves. democrats are calling this a ploy from republicans to force them to vote for this, lest they be accused of constituents back home of a voting against -- of voting against giving themselves a raise. >> assuming passage of this house -- passage of this in the house, what are the prospects in the senate? >> is unlikely they will take this up. there are certainly members on the resource -- on the republican side of the aisle would like to pass the bill. they could do it as an amendment to another measure. it is more likely to happen -- it would be through the continuing resolution that the congress has to pass when our
12:54 am
current operations expire on march 27, and we have to float ourselves through until the end of fiscal 2013. the white house does say they oppose this bill. they did not issue of the threat when they issued their statement. -- issue a veto threat when they issued their statement. >> the house will continue debate on friday on the vote to extend the federal employee pay freeze through the end of the year. the pay freeze was originally enacted in 2010. members are also expected to finish work on a member -- on a measure contemning the north korean government for conducting and nuclear test earlier this week. in a few moments, several cabinet secretaries testified about how their departments would be affected by the pending federal budget cuts known as sequestration. in three hours, british labour party leader at a mill that on
12:55 am
his party's plan to rebuild his country's economy. -- ed milliband on his party's plan to rebuild his country's economy. then a discussion on the middle east and africa. several live event to tell you about tomorrow morning -- the house homeland security oversight subcommittee will look at the effectiveness of spending at home and security department. that is on c-span2 at 9:00 eastern. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span 3, a look at unmanned aerial drones' sharing errors pass -- airspace with other aircraft. this will include representatives of the faa, nasa, and the government accountability office. >> i think the women themselves in many cases were interested in politics, but had no vehicle to express that in their own lives.
12:56 am
they were attracted to men who were going to become politically active or were already politically active. >> each of them i find intriguing. probably half of them, precisely because they are so obscure historical. half of these women probably would be almost totally unrecognizable to most men and women on the street. >> this present state, c-span premieres its new series, "first lady's." with historians, chiefs of staff, chefs, and curators exploring the lives of women who served as first ladies. season one begins monday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span radio, and c- watch the program earlier in the
12:57 am
day at 2:00. >> members of president obama's cabinet were in front of the senate appropriations committee, outlining their assessments of what would happen the automatic budget cuts and a sequestration the into effect on march 1. members included the secretaries of common security, housing, and education. --, and security, housing, and education. this is three hours. -- homeland security, housing, and education. this is three hours. >> good morning, everybody. today, we are convening a meeting of the appropriations committee. this is the first meeting of the appropriations committee in the 113th congress. this is the first meeting with me as chair of the full committee. the focus today will be on the impact of sequester, government
12:58 am
agencies, and critical national functions that are important to the security, safety, and future of the american people. today, as i take and assume this gavel, i am mindful of the history going before me. i will acknowledge the previous leadership. it is a great honor for me to chair this full committee. i think we all carry a special place in our hearts in our presence here today for senator daniel in a way -- inouye. this committee has an excellent track record of leadership on both sides of the aisle. i want to a knowledge the wonderful cooperation i received from senator thad cochran, when on december 20, when i became the chair, senator cochran was the vice chair, and heat -- he helped me in those earlier days
12:59 am
to expeditiously move the hurricane sandy appropriations bill. i will be forever grateful to his steady hand, his wise counsel, and the direct assistance that he provided me. now will acknowledge that my ranking member in this committee is called the vice chairman. senator richard shelby. islam and to many members of the preparations committee in the senate that senator shelby and i have a longstanding personal and professional relationship. we came to the house of representatives together. we served on the same committee. we have served together. i look forward to working with him as my vice chair in continuing the tradition of bipartisanship that has been characteristic of this committee. my relationship with senator shelby is based on mutual trust, mutual respect, and a desire to move things in the regular order. we know that we will disagree on matters of policy. matters of policy. we feel

Capitol Hill Hearings
CSPAN February 14, 2013 8:00pm-1:00am EST


TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 54, America 26, Georgia 24, Florida 21, Carter 11, Shelby 11, Madam 9, Sandy 8, Duncan 6, California 6, Obama 6, Washington 6, Donovan 5, Napolitano 5, U.s. 5, North Korea 4, Kansas 4, Virginia 4, Texas 4, Greece 4
Network CSPAN
Duration 05:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 17 (141 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 2/15/2013